Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks to determine the overall tone and purpose of the passage.
Step 2: Analyzing the Options and the Passage:
Let's define the terms and see which best fits the passage:
\[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{Didactic: Intended to teach, particularly in having a moral instruction as an ulterior motive. While the passage is instructional, its primary purpose is not to impart a moral lesson but to explain a concept. } \\ \bullet & \text{Explicative: Serving to explain or interpret something. This perfectly describes the passage. Its entire purpose is to explain the principles of literary appreciation of prose, defining terms and providing examples of different writing styles (journalist, critic, etc.). It is an explication of a topic in literary criticism. } \\ \bullet & \text{Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The passage is written in an analytical and objective tone, presenting established ideas in literary criticism rather than a purely personal viewpoint. } \\ \bullet & \text{Psychological: Relating to the mind and its processes. The passage is about language and literature, not the psychology of the writer or reader. } \\ \end{array}\]
Step 3: Final Answer:
The most accurate characterization of the passage is "explicative," as it is focused on explaining a concept. Option (B) is correct.
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Hadley v. Baxendale} & \text{(1) Undue Influence} \\ \hline \text{(B) Henkel v. Pape} & \text{(II) Coercion} \\ \hline \text{(C) Manu Singh v. Umadat Pandey} & \text{(III) Quantum of Damages} \\ \hline \text{(D) Chikkam Amiraju v. Seshamma} & \text{(IV) Mistake} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
Match List-I with List-II
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Complete Justice} & \text{(I) Article 137} \\ \hline \text{(B) Special Leave Petition} & \text{(II) Article 131} \\ \hline \text{(C) Review of the Judgments} & \text{(III) Article 142} \\ \hline \text{(D) Original Jurisdiction} & \text{(IV) Article 136} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
Match List-I with List-II
Match List-I with List-II
\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{List-1} & \textbf{List-II} \\ \hline \text{(A) Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab} & \text{(I) Separation of powers} \\ \hline \text{(B) Delhi Laws Act, 1912} & \text{(II) Delegated legislation} \\ \hline \text{(C) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India} & \text{(III) Doctrine of proportionality} \\ \hline \text{(D) Om Kumar v. Union of India} & \text{(IV) Post decisional hearing} \\ \hline \end{array}\]