From the passage, it is strikingly clear that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

The author seems to drive the reader to a conclusion that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

Why does the author say that 'rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance'?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

A careful reading of the passage leads one to which of the following conclusions?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

‘If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people, by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.’ What possible impact may the author be alluding to?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

'Statements routinely issued by the government of the day are not newsworthy'. Choose the correct option regarding this statement.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

Does the reading of the passage lead one to the conclusion that the author wants discontinuation of this practice of issuing routine statements altogether?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

The headline of a newspaper represents the thinking mind of a nation. Choose the correct option regarding this statement.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

Why does the author say that he is mortified by what he encounters every morning in bold prints?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?

The author says that something becomes news because it is headlined by the newspapers. Choose the correct option regarding this statement.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:

Some statements are routinely issued by the government of the day and they become news. They become news not necessarily because they are newsworthy, but because they are headlined by the newspapers. The headlines are usually catchy, although rhetorical in nature. If a survey is carried out about the impact these routine statements make on the people by and large, the report may embarrass the authorities.
Let us examine some of these statements. No one will be allowed to take law into his own hands; the corrupt will be dealt with firmly; indiscipline will not be tolerated whether it is in a campus or in a political outfit; India will not tolerate outside interference; India will not compromise on its principles; J & K is the integral part of India, and so on and so forth. These have been spoken on innumerable occasions and have been heard on umpteen occasions and will continue to be spoken and heard. No one quite keeps count of these statements. They have become so routinely stale that they have ceased to convey any meaning to anyone. These rhetorics are necessary evils of non-governance or ill-governance. Yet they make news and we have the mortification of having to encounter them every morning in bold prints as if to mock and tease us. Mortification because these are forced on our eardrums and the cacophony that they produce does immense harm to our hearing organ. But the statements continue to be ritualistically made.
What do they actually mean when they say they will not allow anyone to take law into his own hands? What is happening all around is just opposite of what they declare from the roof top. Law in its various forms is not only taken into hands, but is also wantonly bandied about with contumely disregard. It is not only tolerated, but is often given respectability too. If it were not so, we would not have been seeing the mushrooming of people with dubious character on the ascendancy right in our midst, not just loafing about, but lording over it all.
Today, words speak, actions do not. As a nation, we have not yet been able to decide as to what our national principles are despite the voluminous constitution and lofty preamble to it. We cannot say with any degree of belief that this and not that is India’s principle. So, how do we decide whether or not we have compromised?