“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”.
This statement, in spite of literal inaccuracy in its every phrase, served the purpose for which it was written. It expressed an aspiration, and it was a fighting slogan. In order that slogans may serve their purpose, it is necessary that they shall arouse strong, emotional belief, but it is not at all necessary that they shall be literally accurate. A large part of each human being’s time on earth is spent in declaiming about his “rights,” asserting their existence, complaining of their violation, describing them as present or future, vested or contingent, absolute or conditional, perfect or inchoate, alienable or inalienable, legal or equitable, in rem or in personam, primary or secondary, moral or jural (legal), inherent or acquired, natural or artificial, human or divine. No doubt still other adjectives are available. Each one expresses some idea, but not always the same idea even when used twice by one and the same person.
They all need definition in the interest of understanding and peace. In his table of correlatives, Hohfeld set “right” over against “duty” as its necessary correlative. This had been done num berless times by other men. He also carefully distinguished it from the concepts expressed in his table by the terms “privilege,” “power,” and “immunity.” To the present writer, the value of his work seems beyond question and the practical convenience of his classification is convincing. However, the adoption of Hohfeld’s classification and the correlating of the terms “right” and “duty” do not complete the work of classification and definition.
The author suggests that the statement "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" was effective primarily because:
Show Hint
- It accurately reflects the literal truth of human existence and legal principles.
- It provided a comprehensive legal definition of natural rights.
- Its emotional and aspirational content made it a successful "fighting slogan."
- It meticulously categorized rights using precise jural (legal) terminology.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks for the primary reason the famous statement from the Declaration of Independence was effective, according to the author of the passage.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The author explicitly addresses this in the first paragraph. The passage begins by calling the statement literally inaccurate, immediately dismissing option (A). It then states: "It expressed an aspiration, and it was a fighting slogan. In order that slogans may serve their purpose, it is necessary that they shall arouse strong, emotional belief, but it is not at all necessary that they shall be literally accurate."
This shows the effectiveness came from its emotional and aspirational power as a "fighting slogan," which directly supports option (C). Options (B) and (D) are incorrect because the rest of the passage argues that terms like "rights" are poorly defined, not comprehensively or meticulously categorized.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's explanation points directly to the statement's role as an emotional and aspirational "fighting slogan" as the source of its effectiveness. Option (C) is the correct choice.
Based on the passage, the primary problem the author identifies with the current discourse surrounding "rights" is the:
Show Hint
- Lack of a comprehensive list of all possible rights.
- Failure of historical documents to be literally accurate.
- Proliferation of undefined and inconsistently used qualifying adjectives.
- Over reliance on Hohfeld's narrow and incomplete classification system.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks what the author sees as the main issue with how people talk about "rights."
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The first paragraph, after the quote, delves into this problem. The author provides a long list of adjectives used to describe rights (e.g., "vested or contingent, absolute or conditional, perfect or inchoate"). The author then concludes: "Each one expresses some idea, but not always the same idea even when used twice by one and the same person. They all need definition..."
This highlights the problem as a "proliferation of undefined and inconsistently used qualifying adjectives," which matches option (C).
Option (A) is related but the core issue isn't just the lack of a list, but the inconsistent meaning of the terms used. Option (B) is a point made about the Declaration, but not the primary problem with the general discourse on rights. Option (D) is incorrect because the author actually praises Hohfeld's system as valuable, even if incomplete, rather than citing over-reliance on it as a problem.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's main critique of the discourse on "rights" is the inconsistent and undefined use of many descriptive terms. Therefore, option (C) is the correct answer.
The author's view of Hohfeld's contribution to legal scholarship can best be described as:
Show Hint
- Essential but ultimately incomplete in fully defining and classifying "rights."
- Flawed because it failed to distinguish "right" from "duty" effectively.
- Irrelevant, as his classification uses confusing and difficult jargon.
- Sufficiently exhaustive to complete the work of definition and classification.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The question asks for the author's opinion on the work of Hohfeld.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The second paragraph presents the author's assessment of Hohfeld. The author states: "To the present writer, the value of his work seems beyond question and the practical convenience of his classification is convincing." This shows the author sees the work as valuable or essential.
However, the paragraph ends with: "However, the adoption of Hohfeld's classification... do not complete the work of classification and definition." This indicates the author believes the work is incomplete.
Combining these two points leads directly to the description in option (A): essential but incomplete.
Option (B) is incorrect; the passage states Hohfeld set "right" over against "duty." Option (C) is incorrect because the author finds the classification convenient, not irrelevant. Option (D) is directly contradicted by the final sentence of the passage.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author considers Hohfeld's work valuable but not final. This view is best captured by option (A).
The phrase "literal inaccuracy in its every phrase" is used by the author to critique the Declaration's statement, suggesting a conflict between its rhetorical power and its:
Show Hint
- Emotional resonance for revolutionaries.
- Utility as a means for legislative action.
- Precision as a statement of verifiable facts or legal principles.
- Acceptance by religious authority and the Creator.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The question asks what the "literal inaccuracy" of the Declaration's statement is contrasted with. The question itself suggests the contrast is with its "rhetorical power." We need to identify what "literal inaccuracy" refers to.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The author states the phrase has "literal inaccuracy" but was effective as a "fighting slogan" that arouses "strong, emotional belief." The power of the slogan lies in its emotional resonance (its rhetorical power). The "inaccuracy" lies in its failure to be a statement of fact. For a statement to be "literally accurate," it must have precision and be verifiable.
Therefore, the conflict is between its emotional effectiveness (rhetorical power) and its lack of precision as a factual or legal statement. Option (C) best describes this lack of precision.
Option (A) is another way of describing its rhetorical power, not what it conflicts with. Options (B) and (D) are not the central conflict highlighted by the author's critique.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The phrase "literal inaccuracy" points to a lack of factual or legal precision, which is contrasted with the statement's effectiveness as a rhetorical tool. Option (C) correctly identifies this point of conflict.
Which concept from Hohfeld's table of correlatives is not explicitly mentioned in the passage as a concept "right" was distinguished from?
Show Hint
- Duty
- Privilege
- Immunity
- Disability
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
This is a detail-oriented question. It asks which of the four listed legal concepts is not mentioned in the passage in the context of Hohfeld's analysis of the term "right."
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
We must carefully read the second paragraph where Hohfeld is discussed. The text mentions the following concepts:
1. It says Hohfeld set "'right' over against 'duty' as its necessary correlative." So, (A) Duty is mentioned.
2. It continues, "He also carefully distinguished it [right] from the concepts expressed in his table by the terms 'privilege,' 'power,' and 'immunity.'" So, (B) Privilege and (C) Immunity are mentioned. (The word 'power' is also mentioned, though not an option).
The text mentions "duty," "privilege," "power," and "immunity." It does not mention "Disability."
Step 3: Final Answer:
By checking the options against the explicit text of the passage, we can see that "Disability" is the only concept not mentioned. Therefore, option (D) is the correct answer.
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
During Bentham’s lifetime, revolutions occurred in the American colonies and in France, producing the Bill of Rights and the Declaration des Droits deHomme (Declaration of the Rights of Man), both of which were based on liberty, equality, and self-determination. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Revolutionary movements broke out that year in France, Italy, Austria, Poland, and elsewhere. In addition, the Indus trial Revolution transformed Great Britain and eventually the rest of Europe from an agrarian (farm-based) society into an industrial one, in which steam and coal increased manufacturing production dramatically, changing the nature of work, property ownership, and family. This period also included advances in chemistry, astronomy, navigation, human anatomy, and im munology, among other sciences.
Given this historical context, it is understandable that Bentham used reason and science to explain human behaviour. His ethical system was an attempt to quantify happiness and the good so they would meet the conditions of the scientific method. Ethics had to be empirical, quantifiable, verifiable, and reproducible across time and space. Just as science was beginning to understand the workings of cause and effect in the body, so ethics would explain the causal relationships of the mind. Bentham rejected religious authority and wrote a rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence in which he railed against natural rights as “rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts.” Instead, the fundamental unit of human action for him was utility—solid, certain, and factual.
What is utility? Bentham’s fundamental axiom, which underlies utilitarianism, was that all so cial morals and government legislation should aim for producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism, therefore, emphasizes the consequences or ultimate purpose of an act rather than the character of the actor, the actor’s motivation, or the particu lar circumstances surrounding the act. It has these characteristics: (1) universality, because it applies to all acts of human behaviour, even those that appear to be done from altruistic mo tives; (2) objectivity, meaning it operates beyond individual thought, desire, and perspective; (3) rationality, because it is not based in metaphysics or theology; and (4) quantifiability in its reliance on utility.- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Reading Comprehension
- Cite two evidences from the text to show that Indian youth is adapting itself to the needs of the job market.
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- English Core
- Reading Comprehension
- The first thing that a scholar should bear in mind is that a book ought not to be read for mere amusement. Half-educated persons read for amusement, and are not to be blamed for it; they are incapable of appreciating the deeper qualities that belong to a really great literature. But a young man who has passed through a course of university training should discipline himself at an early day never to read for mere amusement. And once the habit of this discipline has been formed, he will find it impossible to read for mere amusement. He will then impatiently throw down any book from which he cannot obtain intellectual food, any book that does not make an appeal to the higher emotions and to his intellect. But on the other hand, the habit of reading for amusement becomes with thousands of people exactly the same kind of habit as wine-drinking or opium-smoking; it is like a narcotic; something that helps to pass the time, something that keeps up a perpetual condition of dreaming, something that eventually results in destroying all capacity for thought, giving exercise only to the surface parts of the mind, and leaving the deeper springs of feeling and the higher faculties of perception unemployed.
- UP Board XII - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- Out of debt, out of danger is, like many other proverbs, full of wisdom ; but the word 'danger' does not sufficiently express all that the warning demands. To one that is not insensible, a state of debt is a state of positive misery ; the sufferer is as one haunted by an evil spirit, and his heart can know neither rest nor peace till it is cast out. But as example is at all times more instructive than mere words of mouth, a living writer shall describe his own feelings when beset with creditors, and perhaps he may prove a beacon to the thoughtless ones who are likely to fall into the same gulf.
- UP Board XII - 2025
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- Complete the following sentence suitably with reference to paragraph 3.
One significant advantage of humour is that it helps one ....... .- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- English Core
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts