To determine the author's intention from the passage, we need to analyze the core message presented by the author, J. Krishnamurti. The passage discusses the nature of effective education and the role of love, care, and understanding in nurturing a child.
The author emphasizes that true education involves understanding a child as they are, rather than imposing our ideals upon them. He argues that enforcing ideals leads to conformity, fear, and conflict. Instead, love is emphasized as crucial; education without love leads to an inability to address human problems. Krishnamurti suggests that a teacher should not rely on fixed methodologies, but study each student individually.
The options provided are:
| The right kind of education for a child cannot be without love, care and understanding |
| True education should be governed by a tendency to conform a child to our ideals |
| The teacher should focus on how a child should be according to his/her methodology, hope, or expectation |
| Parents and teachers should work together collectively to guide a child on what she/he should do as per their ambitions |
After evaluating these options with respect to the passage content:
Thus, the option reflecting the author's intention is the first one: The right kind of education for a child cannot be without love, care and understanding.
The passage emphasizes the importance of understanding children as they are, rather than imposing external ideals upon them. The author's primary intention is to highlight the necessity of love, care, and understanding in education. Here is the breakdown:
Based on these points, the correct option is:
The comprehension passage emphasizes the need for a teacher to genuinely understand each student individually rather than imposing an ideal of what they should be. The author argues that a right kind of teacher will not rely solely on systematic methods or ideals, which can lead to conformity, fear, and internal conflict. Instead, the focus should be on understanding the child's unique tendencies, moods, and peculiarities through love and observation. The author criticizes the pursuit of ideals as being more about fulfilling our ambitions than caring for the child's actual needs. Teachers, therefore, should cultivate patience, understanding, and love, allowing them to adapt their approach to each student's individual characteristics.
This directly aligns with the correct answer: "They should focus on studying each student individually."
The passage elucidates the nature of children and the dynamics involved in providing the right education. It articulates that children are "impressionable, volatile, sensitive, afraid, affectionate," and to effectively educate them requires understanding, patience, and love. When educators or parents lack these qualities, they resort to quick fixes and hope for automatic, miraculous results. The passage criticizes the imposition of ideals on children, suggesting that it is a lack of genuine love and understanding that leads to seeking such expedient solutions. Therefore, the answer to why we look for quick and easy remedies and expect marvellous, automatic outcomes is because "children are impressionable, volatile, sensitive, and affectionate." This characteristic makes dealing with them complex and challenging, making people lean towards simpler, immediate solutions when the necessary understanding and patience are absent.
The word "volatile" refers to something that is unstable, unpredictable, or liable to change suddenly. To find its antonym, we look for words that convey stability, reliability, and constancy. The options given, "Stable", "Steady", and "Constant", all fit these criteria as they represent the opposite of volatility: enduring, consistent, and firm. Hence, they are all antonyms of "volatile".
In the comprehension passage, the context emphasizes the need for understanding children who are described as "volatile" among other traits. It suggests that dealing with children requires understanding, patience, and love instead of quick fixes. This further supports why sensitivity and stability are essential attributes, aligning with the concept of opposing volatility.


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.
On the night of October 12th, the "Sunburst Medallion" was stolen from the highly secured display case in the city museum. The theft occurred sometime between the museum closing at 10:00 PM and the night guard, Mr. Hemant, completing his final round at 1:00 AM. Three primary suspects were identified, all of whom had recently been dismissed from their museum positions: Anjali, the former curator; Bharat, the former security expert; and Chitra, the former exhibits designer.
Here are the established facts and their alibis:
Further investigation revealed that a small, distinctive silver button was found near the display case. Anjali is known to frequently wear a coat with similar unique silver buttons. The security expert, Bharat, had previously boasted that he could remotely disable a certain type of magnetic lock—the same type used on the medallion's case—without needing the code, though the log suggests the code was used. (269 words)
In a small town lived a close-knit family where every relation could be expressed through simple symbols. For instance, when they said \( A \times B \), it meant \( A \) is the father of \( B \), while \( A \div B \) meant \( A \) is the mother of \( B \). The younger ones were often introduced with \( A + B \), meaning \( A \) was the daughter of \( B \), and the bond of brotherhood was shown by \( A - B \) (A is brother of B).
One day, the children in the family turned these symbols into a playful code. Instead of introducing their parents and siblings in words, they spoke only in symbols. “Look,” giggled little Meena, “\( M + N \div O \)!” Everyone laughed, because they knew it meant Meena was the daughter of \( N \), and \( N \) was the mother of \( O \), making her \( O \)’s sister. What started as a code soon became a family game, making the bonds of father, mother, daughter, and brother not just relations, but symbols of love and togetherness. (165 words)
Four teams – Red (R), Blue (B), Green (G), and Yellow (Y) – are competing in the final four rounds of the Inter-School Science Olympiad, labeled Round A, Round B, Round C, and Round D. Each round consists of one match between two teams, and every team plays exactly two matches. No team plays the same opponent more than once.
The final schedule must adhere to the following rules:
(193 words)
Health insurance plays a vital role in ensuring financial protection and access to quality healthcare. In India, however, the extent and nature of health insurance coverage vary significantly between urban and rural areas. While urban populations often have better access to organized insurance schemes, employer-provided coverage, and awareness about health policies, rural populations face challenges such as limited outreach of insurance schemes, inadequate infrastructure, and lower awareness levels. This urban-rural divide in health insurance coverage highlights the broader issue of healthcare inequality, making it essential to analyze the factors contributing to this gap and explore strategies for more inclusive health protection. A state-level health survey was conducted.
The survey covered 1,80,000 adults across urban and rural areas. Urban residents formed 55% of the sample (that is, 99,000 people) while rural residents made up 45% (that is, 81,000 people). In each area, coverage was classified under four heads – Public schemes, Private insurance, Employer-provided coverage, and Uninsured. In urban areas, Public coverage accounted for 28% of the urban population, Private for 22%, Employer for 18%, and the remaining 32% were Uninsured. In rural areas, where formal coverage is generally lower, Public coverage stood at 35%, Private at 10%, Employer at 8%, while 47% were Uninsured.
For this survey, “Insured” includes everyone covered by Public + Private + Employer schemes, and “Uninsured” indicates those with no coverage at all. Officials noted that public schemes remain the backbone of rural coverage, while employer and private plans are relatively more prevalent in urban centres. (250 words)