English Quiz for RBI ASSISTANT MAINS
Improve your English with English quiz. English Quiz to help you improve your score for exams like Bank, SSC, Railway, UPSC, UPSSSC, CDS, UPTET, KVS, DSSSB and other Government exams.
Directions (51-58): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them, while answering some of the questions.
There are important differences in the situation models constructed for narrative and expository texts. A situation model for a narrative text is likely to refer to the characters in it and their emotional states, the setting, the action and sequence of events. A situation model for a scientific text, on the other hand, is likely to concentrate on the components of a system and their relationships, the events and processes that occur during the working of the system and the uses of the system. Moreover, scientific discourse is rooted in an understanding of cause and effect that differs from our everyday understanding. Our everyday understanding which is reflected in narrative text sees cause and effect in terms of goal structures. This is indeed the root of our superstitious behaviour – we (not necessarily consciously) attribute purposefulness to almost everything! But this approach is something we have to learn not to apply to scientific problems (and it requires a lot of learning). This is worth emphasising: science texts assume a different way of explaining events from the way we are accustomed to use – a way that must be learned.
In general, narrative text (and ‘ordinary’ thinking) is associated with goal structures and scientific text with logical structures. However, it’s not quite as clear-cut a distinction as all that. While the physical sciences certainly focus on logical structure, both the biological sciences and technology often use goal structures to frame their discussions. Nevertheless, as a generalisation, we may say that logical thinking informs experts in these areas, while goal structures are what novices focus on. This is consistent with another intriguing finding.
In a comparison of two types of texts – one discussing human technology and other discussing forces of nature, it was found that technological texts were more easily processed and remembered. Indications were that different situation models were constructed — a goal-oriented representation for the technological text and a causal chain representation for the force of nature text. The evidence also suggested that people found it much easier to make inferences (whether about agents or objects) when human agents were involved. Having objects as the grammatical subject was clearly more difficult to process.
There are several reasons why goal-oriented, human-focused discourse might be more easily processed (understood, remembered) than texts describing inanimate objects linked in a cause-effect chain and they come down to the degree of similarity to narrative. As a rule of thumb, we may say that to the degree that scientific text resembles a story, the more easily it will be processed. Inference making is crucial to comprehension and the construction of a situation, because a text never explains every single word and detail, every logical or causal connection.
In the same way that narrative and expository texts have different situation models, they also involve a different pattern of inference making, e.g. Narratives involve a lot of predictive inferences, expository texts typically involve a lot of backward inferences. The number of inferences required may also vary.
A study found that readers made nine times as many inferences in stories as they did in expository texts. This may be because there are more inferences required in narratives. Narratives involve the richly complex world of human beings, as opposed to some rigidly specified aspect of it, described according to a strict protocol. But it may also reflect the fact that readers don’t make all (or indeed, anywhere near) the inferences needed in expository text. And indeed, the evidence indicates that students are poor at noticing coherence gaps (which require inferences).
Q1. Which of these statements is not associated with the ‘situation models’?
(a) Situation model refers to characters and their emotional states
(b) Situation model refers to the setting, the action and the sequence of events
(c) Situation model concentrates on the components of a system and their relationships
(d) It does not show the events and processes that occur during the working of a system
(e) None of the above
Q2. In the comparison of two types of texts-one discussing human technology and the other discussing forces of nature, which is the best statement to support the view?
(a) Logical thinking informs experts
(b) Goal-structured thinking may be done by the novices even
(c) Technological texts are processed easily and remembered
(d) Force of nature needs a causal chain
(e) None of the above
Q3. Which is the most optimal reason for easy processing of the scientific text?
(a) Scientific text deals with the phenomenon that are general to the normal course of life
(b) Scientific text when resembles with that of a story then it procures lot more sense to the processing
(c) Scientific texts involve a different pattern of inference making which is possessed by the experts only
(d) Predictive and backward inferences make the scientific text more processed
(e) None of the above
Q4. How does inference affect the processing of scientific text?
(a) Inference gives the readers an idea of the rich and complex human world
(b) It lets the readers away from the definite protocol of an expository text
(c) Inference arms you with the understanding of coherency
(d) All of the above
(e) None of the above
Directions (5 – 6): Choose the word which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word given in bold as used in the passage.
Directions (7 – 8): Choose the word which is opposite in meaning to the word given in bold as used in the passage.
Directions (9-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them, while answering some of the questions.
When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing butpraise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India hasn’t done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased. So has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledging, has grown tremendously. And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetually on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate.
But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backwards. Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world — South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong — India has fared abysmally.
It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had. It suffered hardly or not at all during the World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite, quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others who could be ranked among the world’s best) and excellent business acumen. Yet, today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top. Hong Kong is an export powerhouse. So is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India, no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and encouraged self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and, therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent. The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up.
That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For, in all other respects, it operated under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an inexcisable wart. The high, expropriatory rates of taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of industry for the public sector, and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude. The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth.
Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide. But most of these changes were forced by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself, or that of more than a handful of ministers, has changed, is open to question.
In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one whit. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations. Transparency is still a longer way off. And there is no exit policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labour isequivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labour, otherindustries will think a hundred times before employing new labour.
In other ways too, the government hurts industries. Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian businesses to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services.
After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another 50 years before the government realises that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.
Q9. The writer’s attitude towards the government is
(e) None of the above
Q10. The writer is surprised at the government’s attitude towards its industrialists because
(a)the government did not need to protect its industrialists.
(b)the issue of competition was non-existent.
(c)the government looked upon its industrialists as crooks.
(d)the attitude was a conundrum.
(e) None of the above
Online Mock Test Available on App as well as Web:
How to Access on App:-
- Go to Playstore search Ambitious Baba or Click here to Install App
- After Install Login with Google Account or Facebook Account
2020 Preparation Kit PDF
|I challenge you will get Best Content in Our PDFs with Detail solutions and Latest Pattern|
|Memory Based Puzzle E-book | 2016-19 Exams Covered||Get PDF here|
|Caselet Data Interpretation 200 Questions||Get PDF here|
|Puzzle & Seating Arrangement E-Book for BANK PO MAINS (Vol-1)||Get PDF here|
|ARITHMETIC DATA INTERPRETATION 2019 E-book||Get PDF here|
|The Banking Awareness 500 MCQs E-book| Bilingual (Hindi + English)||Get PDF here|
|High Level DATA INTERPRETATION Practice E-BOOK||Get PDF here|
- WhatsApp Group Join here
- Telegram Group:- Click Here
- Telegram Channel: Click here
- Like & Follow our Facebook Page:- Click here
- Join our Facebook Group:- Click Here