Read the following passage and answer the question
A lot of avoidable excitement, or anxiety, depending on which side of the political fence one sits, has been caused by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of the Union of India vs Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. delivered on Thursday. While sitting in judgement on the limited question of whether IGST can be levied on ocean freight paid by a foreign seller to a foreign shipping line on reverse charge basis, the SC bench comprising Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath dwelt at length on the constitutional framework of GST law, and concepts such as co-operative federalism, un-co-operative federalism and fiscal federalism and came to the conclusion that recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre or the States. It is not evident if the scholarly exposition was warranted while deciding the limited question pertaining to the case but the fact is that the Court has only spelt out what is clearly evident from reading Articles 246A and 279A of the Constitution.. In simple terms, Parliament and State Legislatures have simultaneous powers to legislate under the GST. The Centre has, for obvious reasons, sought to play down the judgment as not interpreting anything new and has underlined that individual States have always complied with decisions made in the GST Council even when such decisions went against their interests. The last thing the Centre wants is for some States to legislate their own tax laws that run counter to the GST. That would begin the process of collapse of the GST which, warts and all, has aided in formalisation of the economy, improving collections and in helping tax-payers avoid the cascading effects of multiple indirect levies. While it may be tempting for some States to break out and legislate on their own, they should realise that in the long run such an act will work against their own interests, besides causing avoidable chaos for tax-payers. The benefits of a common national market for goods and services and profiting from the systemic efficiencies that this confers will be lost as check-posts re-emerge at State borders. Investors would migrate out of such States due to complexities in doing business. Though only five years have lapsed since its introduction, it may be time already for reform of the GST. What we need is statesmanship at the GST Council even if the Court has said that the Council is a place as much for political contestation as for co-operative federalism. Taking this literally will spell trouble for the Union; there are other forums for political contestation. The Council should transcend political rivalries of the day. The point is that States should have the right to dissent in the Council and their voice should not be drowned in the pursuit of unanimity in decision-making. The Centre can set an example by accommodating the demands of the States in the Council even if it means some sacrifice on its part. After all, the onus is on it to run the Council harmoniously. If the GST has made the tax-payer's life better — and it certainly has then the responsibility is on the Centre and the States to make it work. That's also in their best interests.
What is the main message of the above passage?
Read the following passage and answer the question
A lot of avoidable excitement, or anxiety, depending on which side of the political fence one sits, has been caused by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of the Union of India vs Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. delivered on Thursday. While sitting in judgement on the limited question of whether IGST can be levied on ocean freight paid by a foreign seller to a foreign shipping line on reverse charge basis, the SC bench comprising Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath dwelt at length on the constitutional framework of GST law, and concepts such as co-operative federalism, un-co-operative federalism and fiscal federalism and came to the conclusion that recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre or the States. It is not evident if the scholarly exposition was warranted while deciding the limited question pertaining to the case but the fact is that the Court has only spelt out what is clearly evident from reading Articles 246A and 279A of the Constitution.. In simple terms, Parliament and State Legislatures have simultaneous powers to legislate under the GST. The Centre has, for obvious reasons, sought to play down the judgment as not interpreting anything new and has underlined that individual States have always complied with decisions made in the GST Council even when such decisions went against their interests. The last thing the Centre wants is for some States to legislate their own tax laws that run counter to the GST. That would begin the process of collapse of the GST which, warts and all, has aided in formalisation of the economy, improving collections and in helping tax-payers avoid the cascading effects of multiple indirect levies. While it may be tempting for some States to break out and legislate on their own, they should realise that in the long run such an act will work against their own interests, besides causing avoidable chaos for tax-payers. The benefits of a common national market for goods and services and profiting from the systemic efficiencies that this confers will be lost as check-posts re-emerge at State borders. Investors would migrate out of such States due to complexities in doing business. Though only five years have lapsed since its introduction, it may be time already for reform of the GST. What we need is statesmanship at the GST Council even if the Court has said that the Council is a place as much for political contestation as for co-operative federalism. Taking this literally will spell trouble for the Union; there are other forums for political contestation. The Council should transcend political rivalries of the day. The point is that States should have the right to dissent in the Council and their voice should not be drowned in the pursuit of unanimity in decision-making. The Centre can set an example by accommodating the demands of the States in the Council even if it means some sacrifice on its part. After all, the onus is on it to run the Council harmoniously. If the GST has made the tax-payer's life better — and it certainly has then the responsibility is on the Centre and the States to make it work. That's also in their best interests.
What is the main message of the above passage?
- Democratic functioning of the GST council is imperative to gain the advantages of one nation one tax system
- States may legislate their own tax laws in place of GST
- Union Government should impose stricter controls over states to comply with GST laws
- GST Council may approach Supreme Court for further clarifications
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are letters ‘e’ taken from four popular logos, arranged in a sequence. Which of the options is the correct sequence?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are four options, each showing consecutive frames representing the movement of a pendulum of an old-style wall clock for an animation movie. Which is the correct option?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Acrucial moderating factor in how people experience comparisons is self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to interpret upward comparison as informative rather than threatening. They are more resilient in the face of others’ success and more likely to believe they can reach their own goals. In contrast, people with low self-esteem are more prone to interpret comparison as judgment, reinforcing negative self-views and triggering feelings of inadequacy.
This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing loop. People with high self-esteem are less vulnerable to upward comparison, which intensifies those doubts. Those with a secure sense of self are more likely to use comparison as a learning tool. The same external stimulus—a colleague’s achievements, a friend’s popularity—can have radically different effects depending on internal stability.
Self-esteem also influences how people choose their comparison targets. Research has found that individuals often engage in “selective comparison,” seeking out those who confirm their existing beliefs about themselves. This can become a subtle form of self-sabotage. Someone who feels unworthy may subconsciously seek out targets that reinforce that sense, perpetuating a narrative of inferiority. One of the most promising antidotes to social comparison is temporal comparison—evaluating oneself not against others, but against one’s own past. This method has been shown to increase motivation and satisfaction, especially when individuals can see concrete progress. Temporal comparison activates the same reward circuits as social comparison but avoids the threat systems associated with social ranking. It also reinforces agency: individuals focus on what they can control and improve rather than what others control. In therapeutic and coaching settings, temporal comparison is used to help clients build self-efficacy and track growth over time.
Moreover, people who focus on self-improvement rather than social dominance are less likely to fall into cycles of envy or self-pity. They can still use others as inspiration, but they do so without attaching their self-worth to the outcome. This is not to say they never compare—but that they focus on learning, rather than judgment. The most skilful approach to comparison may lie in eliminating it, but in reframing it as feedback. When we interpret comparison as information rather than a verdict, we can ask, “What can I learn from this?” This shift turns comparison into a growth tool. Teachers mentor their students, not as rivals. Psychologists emphasize that the key variable here is mindset.
A fixed mindset sees comparison as a threat. If someone else is better, it means we are worse. A growth mindset sees comparison as a map. If someone else has reached a certain level, it means the path exists. This reframing is not just a cognitive trick. It changes the emotional tone of comparison, making it more likely to inspire than to wound. Reframing also requires emotional regulation—the ability to notice an initial pang of envy or shame without reacting impulsively. With practice, individuals can learn to pause, reflect, and reinterpret their emotional responses. Over time, this builds resilience and self-trust, allowing comparison to become a learning tool rather than a cage.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
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.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
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.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in KMAT KERALA exam
- How many numbers between 900 and 1000 are divisible by 13?
- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- Number Systems
- Seven friends P, Q, R, S, T, U, and V sit on a bench facing north. Each of them is of a different weight (in kg), their random bodily weights are 79, 83, 85, 87, 89, 92, and 96. The following information is known about them:
- P sits third to the right of the heaviest person.
- The heaviest person sits exactly between R and the lightest person, who sits at an end.
- The third lightest person sits adjacent to R and that person is neither P nor adjacent to P.
- Q sits third to the left of the person whose weight is the next higher to R.
- R’s weight is neither 83 kg nor 87 kg.
- P’s weight is neither 92 kg nor 79 kg.
- T’s weight is 83 kg.
- S is heavier than V but is not the heaviest.
Who is the third lightest?- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- Number Series
- Find out the correct preposition: "She wants to jump ______ the swimming pool."
- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- Prepositions
- Find out the correct preposition. He wants to be ________ the party.
- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- Prepositions
- You have not visited me ________ a long time past.
- KMAT KERALA - 2025
- Prepositions