According to the author, who can be described as a public figure?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

The term “public figure” covers a relatively large spectrum of people who share the commonality of being widely known. This can range from those who play a recognisably important role in shaping society, such as politicians or CEOs, to celebrities who attract or court media attention; a public figure then could simply be described as a person who is known by a large mass of a given populous. Most public figures will utilise the media to get a message across to the public which helps further an agenda, thus the power public figures wield in shaping public opinions and perceptions is potentially huge. The media, in its role not only as broadcaster but also as watchdog, claims that information about the private lives of such publics figures should be published as it is in the public interest given the power they have. Public figures argue that while investigation into their public work is fine, they still deserve the right to privacy in their private lives extended to everyone else. The debate has recently been given additional importance by the development of Human Rights law within Europe, as privacy is now classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as by political scandals in many countries which have highlighted the need to scrutinise public figures’ behavior much more closely.

Which of the following statements is a true reference to the passage?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the following question.

The term “public figure” covers a relatively large spectrum of people who share the commonality of being widely known. This can range from those who play a recognisably important role in shaping society, such as politicians or CEOs, to celebrities who attract or court media attention; a public figure then could simply be described as a person who is known by a large mass of a given populous. Most public figures will utilise the media to get a message across to the public which helps further an agenda, thus the power public figures wield in shaping public opinions and perceptions is potentially huge. The media, in its role not only as broadcaster but also as watchdog, claims that information about the private lives of such public figures should be published as it is in the public interest given the power they have. Public figures argue that while investigation into their public work is fine, they still deserve the right to privacy in their private lives extended to everyone else. The debate has recently been given additional importance by the development of Human Rights law within Europe, as privacy is now classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as by political scandals in many countries which have highlighted the need to scrutinise public figures’ behavior much more closely.

Why does the media claim that information about the private lives of public figures should be published?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

The term “public figure” covers a relatively large spectrum of people who share the commonality of being widely known. This can range from those who play a recognisably important role in shaping society, such as politicians or CEOs, to celebrities who attract or court media attention; a public figure then could simply be described as a person who is known by a large mass of a given populous. Most public figures will utilise the media to get a message across to the public which helps further an agenda, thus the power public figures wield in shaping public opinions and perceptions is potentially huge. The media, in its role not only as broadcaster but also as watchdog, claims that information about the private lives of such publics figures should be published as it is in the public interest, given the power they have. Public figures argue that while investigation into their public work is fine, they still deserve the right to privacy in their private lives extended to everyone else. The debate has recently been given additional importance by the development of Human Rights law within Europe, as privacy is now classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as by political scandals in many countries which have highlighted the need to scrutinise public figures’ behavior much more closely.

What does the phrase ‘it is also now officially over’ mean in context of the passage?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the following question. 

The long fight of Nepalis to have a constitution written by representatives of the people is over. The fight that lasted 65 years, saw a civil war and multiple major revolutions - along with a century old monarchy toppled in the process. The new constitution, which took more than seven years to draft, was overwhelmingly endorsed in the constitutional assembly - a constitution-making body comprised of 601 elected lawmakers. The three prominent parties - Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - collaborated for the majority while few other smaller opposing parties either voted against, or boycotted the process. The civil war, instigated by Maoist rebels, lasted for 10 years, from 1996 to 2006 and claimed more than 15,000 lives. With the signing of the Constitution, it is also now officially over. More than 80% of the country's population is Hindu - the largest Hindu majority in the world- will remain secular as per the new constitution. But not everyone is celebrating. A handful of groups representing a number of ethnic minorities have denounced the new constitution. The smaller opposition parties representing the Madhesi and Tharu indigenous groups have been the most vocal opponents of the new constitution. Lawmakers from the parties boycotted the final voting process.

It was a long fight to write the constitution of Nepal because

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the following question. 

The long fight of Nepalis to have a constitution written by representatives of the people is over. The fight that lasted 65 years, saw a civil war and multiple major revolutions - along with a century old monarchy toppled in the process. The new constitution, which took more than seven years to draft, was overwhelmingly endorsed in the constitutional assembly - a constitution-making body comprised of 601 elected lawmakers. The three prominent parties - Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - collaborated for the majority while few other smaller opposing parties either voted against, or boycotted the process. The civil war, instigated by Maoist rebels, lasted for 10 years, from 1996 to 2006 and claimed more than 15,000 lives. With the signing of the Constitution, it is also now officially over. More than 80% of the country's population is Hindu - the largest Hindu majority in the world- will remain secular as per the new constitution. But not everyone is celebrating. A handful of groups representing a number of ethnic minorities have denounced the new constitution. The smaller opposition parties representing the Madhesi and Tharu indigenous groups have been the most vocal opponents of the new constitution. Lawmakers from the parties boycotted the final voting process.

Which of the following words is similar in meaning to ‘endorsed’ from the passage?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the following question. 

The long fight of Nepalis to have a constitution written by representatives of the people is over. The fight that lasted 65 years, saw a civil war and multiple major revolutions - along with a century old monarchy toppled in the process. The new constitution, which took more than seven years to draft, was overwhelmingly endorsed in the constitutional assembly - a constitution-making body comprised of 601 elected lawmakers. The three prominent parties - Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - collaborated for the majority while few other smaller opposing parties either voted against, or boycotted the process. The civil war, instigated by Maoist rebels, lasted for 10 years, from 1996 to 2006 and claimed more than 15,000 lives. With the signing of the Constitution, it is also now officially over. More than 80% of the country's population is Hindu - the largest Hindu majority in the world- will remain secular as per the new constitution. But not everyone is celebrating. A handful of groups representing a number of ethnic minorities have denounced the new constitution. The smaller opposition parties representing the Madhesi and Tharu indigenous groups have been the most vocal opponents of the new constitution. Lawmakers from the parties boycotted the final voting process.

Which of the following statements based on the passage is incorrect?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

The term “public figure” covers a relatively large spectrum of people who share the commonality of being widely known. This can range from those who play a recognisably important role in shaping society, such as politicians or CEOs, to celebrities who attract or court media attention; a public figure then could simply be described as a person who is known by a large mass of a given populous. Most public figures will utilise the media to get a message across to the public which helps further an agenda, thus the power public figures wield in shaping public opinions and perceptions is potentially huge. The media, in its role not only as broadcaster but also as watchdog, claims that information about the private lives of such publics figures should be published as it is in the public interest given the power they have. Public figures argue that while investigation into their public work is fine, they still deserve the right to privacy in their private lives extended to everyone else. The debate has recently been given additional importance by the development of Human Rights law within Europe, as privacy is now classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as by political scandals in many countries which have highlighted the need to scrutinise public figures’ behavior much more closely.

Which of the following statements is not true in reference to the passage?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the following question. 

The long fight of Nepalis to have a constitution written by representatives of the people is over. The fight that lasted 65 years, saw a civil war and multiple major revolutions - along with a century old monarchy toppled in the process. The new constitution, which took more than seven years to draft, was overwhelmingly endorsed in the constitutional assembly - a constitution-making body comprised of 601 elected lawmakers. The three prominent parties - Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - collaborated for the majority while few other smaller opposing parties either voted against, or boycotted the process. The civil war, instigated by Maoist rebels, lasted for 10 years, from 1996 to 2006 and claimed more than 15,000 lives. With the signing of the Constitution, it is also now officially over. More than 80% of the country's population is Hindu - the largest Hindu majority in the world- will remain secular as per the new constitution. But not everyone is celebrating. A handful of groups representing a number of ethnic minorities have denounced the new constitution. The smaller opposition parties representing the Madhesi and Tharu indigenous groups have been the most vocal opponents of the new constitution. Lawmakers from the parties boycotted the final voting process.

Why does the passage say ‘not everyone is celebrating’?

Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the following question. 

The long fight of Nepalis to have a constitution written by representatives of the people is over. The fight that lasted 65 years, saw a civil war and multiple major revolutions - along with a century old monarchy toppled in the process. The new constitution, which took more than seven years to draft, was overwhelmingly endorsed in the constitutional assembly - a constitution-making body comprised of 601 elected lawmakers. The three prominent parties - Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - collaborated for the majority while few other smaller opposing parties either voted against, or boycotted the process. The civil war, instigated by Maoist rebels, lasted for 10 years, from 1996 to 2006 and claimed more than 15,000 lives. With the signing of the Constitution, it is also now officially over. More than 80% of the country's population is Hindu - the largest Hindu majority in the world- will remain secular as per the new constitution. But not everyone is celebrating. A handful of groups representing a number of ethnic minorities have denounced the new constitution. The smaller opposition parties representing the Madhesi and Tharu indigenous groups have been the most vocal opponents of the new constitution. Lawmakers from the parties boycotted the final voting process.

Which of the following was/were not a feature of the IGF at this time?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

Netheads build, run and protect the internet. They often profit from it too. More than 2,000 of them from more than 100 countries descended on Nairobi this week for the latest Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a conference organised under United Nations auspices. The ponderous official theme was the internet “as a catalyst for change”, with a lot of nodding to WikiLeaks and the Arab spring. The reality outside the conference hall, the UN headquarters in the Kenyan capital, was more striking. Kenyans nowadays often go online on their mobile phones. Surfing the web is getting faster and cheaper by the day. The internet is no longer a geeks' affair in the rich world, but woven into the fabric of business and life even in the poor one.
The IGF is not a typical UN meeting with a carefully staged agenda and much diplomatic protocol. All participants had the same right to take the floor. Government suits had to listen patiently to the complaints of internet activists. And the end of the shindig was not marked by a finely tuned communiqué, but by a workshop dedicated to what the organisers should do better.
All this makes the IGF an unusual grouping. It is in effect a poster child for what insiders like to call the “multi-stakeholder” model. All involved have a say and decisions are taken by “rough consensus”. This approach has worked for the internet so far, but it is increasingly under attack. Governments now want to be given the last word on contentious issues rather than being merely treated as just another stakeholder.

The latest Internet Governance Forum (IGF) conference held at Nairobi was organised by

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

Netheads build, run and protect the internet. They often profit from it too. More than 2,000 of them from more than 100 countries descended on Nairobi this week for the latest Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a conference organised under United Nations auspices. The ponderous official theme was the internet “as a catalyst for change”, with a lot of nodding to WikiLeaks and the Arab spring. The reality outside the conference hall, the UN headquarters in the Kenyan capital, was more striking. Kenyans nowadays often go online on their mobile phones. Surfing the web is getting faster and cheaper by the day. The internet is no longer a geeks' affair in the rich world, but woven into the fabric of business and life even in the poor one.
The IGF is not a typical UN meeting with a carefully staged agenda and much diplomatic protocol. All participants had the same right to take the floor. Government suits had to listen patiently to the complaints of internet activists. And the end of the shindig was not marked by a finely tuned communiqué, but by a workshop dedicated to what the organisers should do better.
All this makes the IGF an unusual grouping. It is in effect a poster child for what insiders like to call the “multi-stakeholder” model. All involved have a say and decisions are taken by “rough consensus”. This approach has worked for the internet so far, but it is increasingly under attack. Governments now want to be given the last word on contentious issues rather than being merely treated as just another stakeholder.

Which of the following best explains why IGF is a ‘multi-stakeholder model'?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

Netheads build, run and protect the internet. They often profit from it too. More than 2,000 of them from more than 100 countries descended on Nairobi this week for the latest Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a conference organised under United Nations auspices. The ponderous official theme was the internet “as a catalyst for change”, with a lot of nodding to WikiLeaks and the Arab spring. The reality outside the conference hall, the UN headquarters in the Kenyan capital, was more striking. Kenyans nowadays often go online on their mobile phones. Surfing the web is getting faster and cheaper by the day. The internet is no longer a geeks' affair in the rich world, but woven into the fabric of business and life even in the poor one.
The IGF is not a typical UN meeting with a carefully staged agenda and much diplomatic protocol. All participants had the same right to take the floor. Government suits had to listen patiently to the complaints of internet activists. And the end of the shindig was not marked by a finely tuned communiqué, but by a workshop dedicated to what the organisers should do better.
All this makes the IGF an unusual grouping. It is in effect a poster child for what insiders like to call the “multi-stakeholder” model. All involved have a say and decisions are taken by “rough consensus”. This approach has worked for the internet so far, but it is increasingly under attack. Governments now want to be given the last word on contentious issues rather than being merely treated as just another stakeholder.

What is/are the role(s) attributed to the media in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

The term “public figure” covers a relatively large spectrum of people who share the commonality of being widely known. This can range from those who play a recognisably important role in shaping society, such as politicians or CEOs, to celebrities who attract or court media attention; a public figure then could simply be described as a person who is known by a large mass of a given populous. Most public figures will utilise the media to get a message across to the public which helps further an agenda, thus the power public figures wield in shaping public opinions and perceptions is potentially huge. The media, in its role, not only as a broadcaster but also as a watchdog, claims that information about the private lives of such publics figures should be published as it is in the public interest given the power they have. Public figures argue that while investigation into their public work is fine, they still deserve the right to privacy in their private lives extended to everyone else. The debate has recently been given additional importance by the development of Human Rights law within Europe, as privacy is now classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as by political scandals in many countries which have highlighted the need to scrutinise public figures’ behavior much more closely.

The passage refers to ‘government suits’. Who are these 'suits'?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

NETHEADS build, run and protect the internet. They often profit from it too. More than 2,000 of them from more than 100 countries descended on Nairobi this week for the latest Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a conference organised under United Nations auspices. The ponderous official theme was the internet “as a catalyst for change”, with a lot of nodding to WikiLeaks and the Arab spring. The reality outside the conference hall, the UN headquarters in the Kenyan capital, was more striking. Kenyans nowadays often go online on their mobile phones. Surfing the web is getting faster and cheaper by the day. The internet is no longer a geeks' affair in the rich world, but woven into the fabric of business and life even in the poor one.
The IGF is not a typical UN meeting with a carefully staged agenda and much diplomatic protocol. All participants had the same right to take the floor. Government suits had to listen patiently to the complaints of internet activists. And the end of the shindig was not marked by a finely tuned communiqué, but by a workshop dedicated to what the organisers should do better.
All this makes the IGF an unusual grouping. It is in effect a poster child for what insiders like to call the “multi-stakeholder” model. All involved have a say and decisions are taken by “rough consensus”. This approach has worked for the internet so far, but it is increasingly under attack. Governments now want to be given the last word on contentious issues rather than being merely treated as just another stakeholder.

Why do you think the passage says that "The internet is no longer a geeks' affair in the rich world"?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the following question.

NETHEADS build, run and protect the internet. They often profit from it too. More than 2,000 of them from more than 100 countries descended on Nairobi this week for the latest Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a conference organised under United Nations auspices. The ponderous official theme was the internet “as a catalyst for change”, with a lot of nodding to WikiLeaks and the Arab spring. The reality outside the conference hall, the UN headquarters in the Kenyan capital, was more striking. Kenyans nowadays often go online on their mobile phones. Surfing the web is getting faster and cheaper by the day. The internet is no longer a geeks' affair in the rich world, but woven into the fabric of business and life even in the poor one.
The IGF is not a typical UN meeting with a carefully staged agenda and much diplomatic protocol. All participants had the same right to take the floor. Government suits had to listen patiently to the complaints of internet activists. And the end of the shindig was not marked by a finely tuned communiqué, but by a workshop dedicated to what the organisers should do better.
All this makes the IGF an unusual grouping. It is in effect a poster child for what insiders like to call the “multi-stakeholder” model. All involved have a say and decisions are taken by “rough consensus”. This approach has worked for the internet so far, but it is increasingly under attack. Governments now want to be given the last word on contentious issues rather than being merely treated as just another stakeholder.