The question asks for an inference based on the opening lines of the passage provided. To determine the correct inference, we need to analyze the initial segment of the comprehension and its implications. Let's assess the possible options against the content of the passage.
Based on this analysis, let's evaluate each option:
Thus, the correct inference from the opening lines of the passage is that The policy recommends reservation for women.
The given passage discusses the policy by the government for women. This comprehension provides insights into why the policy is considered groundbreaking and focuses on the specific needs of women, emphasizing the participatory approach in its formulation and detailing concrete legislative proposals. Let's evaluate each option based on the passage:
In conclusion, the true statement with regard to the policy is "It is a pioneering effort", as it clearly aligns with the descriptive details and opinion expressed within the provided passage.
The question requires us to identify the consequence of rural-urban migration, as mentioned in the provided passage. Let's examine the passage:
The passage describes a policy focused on improving the status of women and mentions different measures including economic and political empowerment.
An important aspect of the policy is recognizing specific situations, notably "the growing number of households headed by women," identified as a consequence of rural-urban migration.
Now, let's analyze each option:
Option 1: There will not be any development in rural areas
The passage does not discuss the absence of development in rural areas as a result of rural-urban migration. Thus, this option is not supported by the passage.
Option 2: Many women migrate to urban areas leaving their family in the rural areas
The passage does not indicate that women are the ones migrating to urban areas and leaving families behind. This option is incorrect.
Option 3: Industries do not get sufficient manpower in rural areas
The passage does not mention the impact on industries' manpower in rural areas as a consequence of rural-urban migration. Hence, this option is not justified.
Option 4: Rural children’s education suffers badly
The passage does not state that rural children's education suffers due to rural-urban migration. Therefore, this option is not relevant.
Option 5: A growing number of households are headed by women
This option is directly stated in the passage. The policy document acknowledges "the growing number of households headed by women" as a consequence of rural-urban migration, hence making this the correct choice.
After evaluating all the options, we can conclude that the correct answer is:
A growing number of households are headed by women
The question asks about the far-reaching impact of a particular policy discussed in a reading comprehension passage. Let's analyze the passage and determine the correct answer.
The passage outlines a policy aimed at bringing about substantial social reforms concerning women's rights and roles. Key points include:
Given these details, the correct choice is the option that pertains to the amendments in the Hindu Succession Act, focusing on giving women coparcenary rights. This aspect of the policy is deemed to have particularly far-reaching implications.
Here is a breakdown of why the other options are incorrect:
Therefore, the correct answer is: To render women coparcenary rights.
To determine the statement which is not true based on the comprehension provided, let's evaluate each option against the given passage:
Therefore, the statement that is not true is: There is no bias in dowry cases though the law enforcement authorities are men. This statement contradicts the passage, which acknowledges the presence of biases by male law enforcement authorities.
To determine which option has the danger of lapsing into tokenism, we must understand the context provided in the comprehension passage. The passage discusses the government's policy for women, aiming at comprehensive social reforms. It highlights the extensive effort in crafting this policy through participatory processes, involving women's groups and NGOs. The policy aims to address real issues through several initiatives, including coparcenary rights and economic participation.
Now, let's analyze each option based on the passage:
Based on the passage analysis, "Reservation for women" is the option that has the risk of lapsing into tokenism, as it could merely be used to enhance visibility without real empowerment.
This conclusion is drawn from the passage's statement reflecting concerns over reservations potentially becoming a mere formality or political tool instead of driving actual change.
To determine the word opposite in meaning to ‘lofty’ as used in the passage, let us first understand its contextual usage. The passage mentions, "The result is not just a lofty declaration of principles but a blueprint for a practical programme of action." Here, 'lofty' refers to something that is elevated, superior, or high in standards or ideals.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Undignified.
The given question asks for the basic block in the effective implementation of the policy as discussed in the comprehension. We need to identify the correct option from the given choices:
From the comprehension, the passage describes a policy aimed at improving women's status and removing discriminatory practices against them. The ultimate goal is to ensure women have greater control over economic and political conditions and equal opportunities in law enforcement.
The comprehension outlines how the policy's implementation requires a change in the societal power structures, particularly those that traditionally hold back women's development and equality. Specifically, the passage states, "This is because the changes it envisages in the political and economic status of women strike at the root of power structures in society and the basis of man-woman relationships."
Tackling these power structures is key to implementing the policy effectively. Without altering these structures, other measures (like improvements in legislation or administration) would be less effective or even ineffective. Thus, the primary block in the successful implementation of such policy reforms is the prevalent power structure in India.
Hence, the correct answer is option Prevalent power structure in India. This option is justified as the root challenge that policy changes aim to address housing many obstacles affecting women's empowerment.
When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
As the post–World War II generation of liberal democratic leaders forged new, highly successful domestic and international institutions and policies throughout the West, the weaknesses of liberal democracy that dominated the two decades after World War II faded from view. But they did not go away.
First, because liberal democracy restrains majorities, it slows the achievement of goals that majorities support. This generates frustration with institutional restraints, and an unacknowledged envy of authoritarian systems that can act quickly and decisively. China can build huge cities in the time it takes the United States to review the environmental impact of small highway projects. Liberal democracy requires more patience than many possess. Second, liberal democracy requires tolerance for minority views and ways of life to which many citizens are deeply opposed. It is natural to feel that if we consider certain views or ways of life to be odious, we should use public power to suppress them. In many such cases, liberal democracy restrains this impulse, a psychological burden that some will find unbearable.
This leads directly to the third inherent problem of liberal democracy—the distinction it requires us to make between civic identity and personal or group identity. For example, although we may consider certain religious views false and even dangerous, we must, for civic purposes, accept those who hold these views as our equals. They may freely express these views; they may organize to promote them; they may vote, and their votes are given the same weight as ours. The same goes for race, ethnicity, gender, and all the particularities that distinguish us from one another.
This requirement often goes against the grain of natural sentiments. We want the public sphere to reflect what we find most valuable about our private commitments. Liberal democracy prevents us from fully translating our personal identities into our public lives as citizens. This too is not always easy to bear. The quest for wholeness—for a political community, or even a world, that reflects our most important commitments—is a deep yearning to which liberal leaders can always appeal.
Nor is the fourth inherent difficulty of liberal democracy—the necessity of compromise—easy to bear. If what I want is good and true, why should I agree that public decisions must incorporate competing views? James Madison gives us the answer: in circumstances of liberty, diversity of views is inevitable, and unless those who agree with us form a majority so large as to be irresistible, the alternative to compromise is inaction, which is often more damaging, or oppression, which always is.
Beware of the old newspapers
stacked
on that little three legged stool over there.
Don’t disturb them.
I know it for a fact
that snakes have spawned in between these sheets.
Don’t even look in that direction.
It’s not because of breeze
that their corners are fluttering.
It’s alive, that nest of newspapers.
new born snakes, coiling and uncurling,
are turning their heads to look at you.
That white corner has spread its hood.
A forked tongue
shoots out of its mouth.
Keep your eyes closed.
Get rid of the whole goddamn pile if you
want to
in the morning.
If the price of a commodity increases by 25%, by what percentage should the consumption be reduced to keep the expenditure the same?
A shopkeeper marks his goods 40% above cost price and offers a 10% discount. What is his percentage profit?