From the information in the first paragraph, we can make inferences for options 1, 3, and 4. The idea of experimental sites is evident in the first paragraph, and the mention of Enlightenment rationalism as the motivation behind the change in colonial policy supports option 3. The statement, "It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India," in the first paragraph supports option 4.
Regarding option 2, although there is evidence in the passage that the change faced resistance from existing structural forms, it's crucial to note that these structural forms were not associated with modernity. The passage argues that modernity was introduced externally by the British, and the existing structural forms in India were not of modernity. Therefore, option 2 cannot be directly inferred.
In summary, options 1, 3, and 4 can be inferred from the first paragraph, but option 2 is not directly supported due to the distinction between resistance and existing structural forms.
The points explicitly mentioned by the author in the passage will undoubtedly support his argument. Conversely, any point not mentioned or one that contradicts the author's statements will not support the argument. It's crucial to recognize that not supporting does not necessarily mean weakening the argument.
Option 4 supports the author's argument since historians who argued that capitalism in India was not introduced with any modifications are explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph.
Option 3 is also supportive, as the passage, in the very first paragraph, mentions that colonies were considered experimental labs.
Option 2 is found towards the end of the passage, in the last paragraph, where the author states that since modernity was externally imposed, it led to the development of underdevelopment.
Option 1 is challenging because the term 'induced by' might be unclear. 'Induced by' means triggered or caused by. The change in British colonial policy was not induced by resistance to modernity. Instead, the change in policy came first, followed by the resistance to modernity in Indian society. Thus, the correct way to express this idea would be: the resistance to modernity in Indian society was induced by the change in British colonial policy.
Given this clarification, Option 1 is the correct choice.
To marginalize means to consider something or someone as unimportant. In the context of the passage, the colonial state, represented by a small ruling elite, was marginalized because it existed on the outskirts of Indian society. Due to its small size, the colonial state was treated as insignificant. To overcome this marginalization, the ruling elite attempted to introduce modernity to Indian society. The idea was that if everyone in the society became modernized, the colonized state would be integrated into the mainstream of Indian society. To choose the correct answer, it is crucial to grasp the meaning of the term "marginalized." Option 4 is the correct choice as it accurately captures the contextual meaning of the word 'marginalized'.
This question is straightforward. Towards the end of the passage, the author discusses the development of underdevelopment, and the passage opens by introducing British colonial policy. Therefore, Option 4 is the correct choice.
In this context, it's important to accurately understand the meaning of the word "endogenous." It should not be confused with "endogamous," which refers to marriage within a specific tribe. "Endogenous" means having an internal cause or origin. With this clarification, it becomes evident that Option 3 is not the correct choice.
Given the meaning of the word "endogenous," the correct answer is Option 2.
\(\text{The Politics of Change}\) | \(\text{The Change in Politics}\) | \(\text{Politics and Change:}\) A Global Perspective} |
In "The Politics of Change," political analyst Dr. Emily Harper examines the dynamics of social movements and their impact on policy reform. Through detailed case studies, she explores how grassroots organizations, protests, and advocacy campaigns shape public opinion and influence lawmakers. Dr. Harper provides insights into the strategies that successful movements employ and discusses the challenges they face in a complex political landscape. She discusses key strategies, such as coalition-building, media engagement, and the use of digital platforms to amplify voices. | This book by veteran journalist Mark Stevens investigates the shifting political landscape in the 21st century. Focusing on major elections, emerging political parties, and the role of social media, Stevens analyzes how technology and demographics are transforming political engagement and voter behaviour. Through interviews with political leaders, campaign strategists, and everyday voters, Stevens uncovers how demographic shifts and technological advancements are reshaping political discourse in urban areas. He analyzes the implications of these changes for traditional political institutions and explores how movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have disrupted conventional narratives. | In this insightful work, international relations scholar Dr. Anika Patel presents a global analysis of political change across various regions. She explores the factors that drive political transitions, including economic shifts, cultural movements, and international influences. Dr. Patel emphasizes the interconnectedness of global politics and how local changes can have far-reaching implications. She analyzes various factors driving political transitions, including economic upheaval, cultural shifts, and the impact of globalization. She provides case studies from diverse regions, such as the Arab Spring, democratic movements in Latin America, and shifts in power in Asia. The book serves as a vital resource for understanding the complexities of political evolution in a rapidly changing world. |