Question

By ‘Sanctimonious greens’ the writer refers to

• A. aristocratic environmentalists
• B. the rich
• C. environmentalists with a ‘holier than thou’ attitude
• D. those who decry deforestation
• A. jealous of Nano owners
• B. afraid of traffic jams and depletion of fossil fuel
• C. afraid of reaching their destinations late
• D. full of disdain that the poor can afford cars
• A. bigger cars mean more fuel, more space and more pollution
• B. though India has fewer cars the Nano will bring more pollution
• C. London and New York have more cars and less pollution
• D. though India is smaller than the US its cars cause more pollution
• A. Caustic
• B. exaggerating
• C. Sarcastic
• D. ironical
• A. subsidizing kerosene whereby greenhouse emissions are indirectly subsidized
• B. subsidizing diesel
• C. for increasing the cost of parking by the hour
• D. for not making it mandatory for car owners to own parking space
• A. Polluting Politics
• B. No No Nano
• C. Submerge Subsidies
• D. More Cars, Less Pollution

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1 — Locate the phrase in the passage:
The author writes: “Sanctimonious greens call the Nano disastrous because of its affordability...”
Here, “greens” clearly refers to environmentalists or people who advocate for environmental protection.

Step 2 — Meaning of ‘sanctimonious’:
The word “sanctimonious” means acting as if one is morally superior, showing a self-righteous ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude.

Step 3 — Connect with the context:
The writer is criticizing certain environmentalists who condemn the Nano car not because it is highly polluting, but because it makes mobility affordable for the poor. The author calls this elitist hypocrisy, as these greens already own cars themselves.
Thus, by saying “sanctimonious greens,” the writer refers to those environmentalists who display moral superiority and hypocrisy rather than genuine concern for the environment.

Step 4 — Conclusion:
Therefore, the expression points to environmentalists with a ‘holier than thou’ attitude.

Final Answer:
The correct option is (C): environmentalists with a ‘holier than thou’ attitude.

Answer 2

Step 1 — Recall the relevant portion of the passage:
The author writes: “Elite greens own cars, but cannot stand the poorer masses becoming mobile, since the consequent congestion will eat into the time of the elite!”

Step 2 — Interpret the meaning:
Here, the ‘elite’ refers to wealthy or privileged people who already own cars.
Their real concern, according to the writer, is not the environment but the possibility that more affordable cars (like Nano) will allow the poor to buy vehicles too, which would create congestion.

Step 3 — What troubles them most:
The congestion caused by millions of new cars would increase traffic jams and delays.
This would directly affect the elites’ convenience, as they fear reaching their destinations later than before.

Step 4 — Conclusion:
Thus, the ‘elite’ in this passage are portrayed as people mainly worried about their own travel time rather than genuine environmental issues.

Final Answer:
The correct option is (C): afraid of reaching their destinations late.

Answer 3

Step 1 — Identify the paradox mentioned in the passage:
The author says: “India has very few cars per person by world standards. London and New York have ultra-high car densities, yet have clearer air than Delhi.”

Step 2 — Understand the contradiction:
Normally, one would expect that the more cars a city has, the more pollution it should suffer from.
But here the opposite is true — London and New York, despite having many more cars per person, experience cleaner air than Delhi, which has fewer cars.

Step 3 — Reason behind this paradox:
This shows that the main problem is not the number of cars in India but the bad government policies, poor fuel standards, adulteration, and lack of proper regulations that worsen pollution levels.

Step 4 — Conclusion:
Hence, the paradox lies in the fact that cities with higher car density (London, New York) have less pollution compared to Delhi which has fewer cars.

Final Answer:
The correct option is (C): London and New York have more cars and less pollution.

Answer 4

Step 1 — Recall the statement from the passage:
The author mentions: “A single parking space of 23 square meters occupies land worth Rs. 40 lakhs. A car occupies more space than an office desk, yet the desk space pays full commercial rent while parking space costs just about Rs. 10 per day.”

Step 2 — Examine the tone:
The comparison highlights the absurdity that extremely valuable land in cities is virtually given away for free when used as parking, while commercial space (like office desks) is charged heavily.

Step 3 — Why this is sarcastic:
The writer is not literally praising cheap parking. Instead, he is mocking the irrationality of the policy, exposing the irony that scarce land worth lakhs is treated so casually for car parking.
This ridicule and irony reflect sarcasm.

Step 4 — Conclusion:
Thus, in stating the cost of parking space, the writer is being sarcastic to criticize the flawed subsidy and policy.

Final Answer:
The correct option is (C): Sarcastic.

Answer 5

Step 1 — Recall the relevant passage portion:
The writer says: “We sanctimoniously lecture rich countries to reduce their green house emissions, yet subsidize our own. Diesel is subsidized to be cheaper than petrol... So does kerosene provided at throwaway prices, ostensibly to benefit poor villagers. One third of all kerosene is used to adulterate petrol and diesel. This causes horrendous pollution even in the greenest of cars.”

Step 2 — Interpret the meaning:
India accuses developed nations of contributing to greenhouse emissions, but at the same time, India itself subsidizes fuels like diesel and kerosene.
These subsidies encourage higher consumption and adulteration, thereby worsening pollution and increasing greenhouse gas emissions indirectly.

Step 3 — The contradiction (hypocrisy):
On one hand, India demands that other nations reduce emissions, but on the other hand, it promotes policies that worsen its own emissions by keeping kerosene and diesel cheap.

Step 4 — Conclusion:
Hence, the writer blames India for subsidizing kerosene, which indirectly subsidizes greenhouse emissions.

Final Answer:
The correct option is (A): subsidizing kerosene whereby greenhouse emissions are indirectly subsidized.

Answer 6

Step 1 — Understand the central theme of the passage:
The author is not mainly attacking the Nano car or even the number of cars in India. Instead, he emphasizes that the real problem lies in wrong government policies — subsidies on fuels, vehicles, parking, and kerosene which encourage congestion, adulteration, and pollution.

Step 2 — Analyze the role of subsidies:
• Subsidized diesel → leads to more diesel cars and harmful particulate emissions.
• Subsidized kerosene → used for adulteration, worsening pollution.
• Subsidized parking and roads → encourage more cars on the road.
• Petrol prices kept artificially low → massive financial burden and higher fuel consumption.

All these show that subsidies are the hidden villains behind pollution and congestion.

Step 3 — Why "Submerge Subsidies" fits best:
The passage strongly argues that India must abolish subsidies on vehicles, parking, and fuels to solve its urban congestion and pollution problems.
Hence, the most suitable and precise title is Submerge Subsidies — meaning subsidies must be buried or eliminated.

Step 4 — Conclusion:
The entire passage revolves around the idea that subsidies worsen the situation, so the title must highlight this central message.

Final Answer:
The correct option is (C): Submerge Subsidies.