IBPS Exam Guru
free Online Practice
Online Practice: IBPS Clerk PO Specialist Officer &RRB Prepare

Exercise

Bank PO :: Test 115
Home > Bank PO > Test 115 > General Questions
1 .

Direction (Q. 1 - 10) : Read the passage given below and answer the following questions:
Should the Supreme Court (SC) be trying to decide whether or not a temple existed at the site ofthe Babri Masjid? Certainly not. The SC is supposed to decide matters of law, not those of archaeology or history. In any case, the evidence regarding archaeological or historical matters is of ten so scanty that scholars debate these issues inconclusively for decades, sometimes forever. It would be ridiculous for the court to deliver any judgement on matters of this nature. The govt has referred this matter to the court to escape the political flak that will fly if it takes a decision itself. But politics is not meant to provide simple and universally acceptable Solutions to every problem, and dilemmas are commonplace in politics. This is no reason for the govt to abdicate its political responsibity and hide behind the skirts of the SC. It needs to show that it has convictions of its own, that it can lead people instead of being led by communal passions.
The SC has taken ages to decide whether it will take up the issue or not. It recently asked for clarification whether the govt would abide by its opinion. We do not understand how this is germane. The issue before the court is not a judicial one at all. Even if the PM accepts it, he cannot possibly bind any future govt, and the court should not lay itself open to the possibility of looking very foolish if this happens. Any court verdict on judicial matters is automatically binding on the govt, and the very fact that the court has to seek an ässurance on this issue proves its non-judicial character.  The SC should refuse categoricauy to deliver an opinion on the matter. Indeed, it should pull up the govt for trying to pass the buck on political matter. So far, it seems to be toying with the idea of accepting the buck.

Why, according to the author, should the court not take up this case ?

A.    It is a political issue. B.    It is communal in nature,
C.    It is non-judicial in nature. D.    The evidence regarding it is scanty.
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
2 .

Why is the case non-judicial in nature ?

A.    It is communal and political in nature. B.    It is archaeological and historical in nature.
C.    The courts verdict is not binding on the govt. D.    Both (2) and (3)
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
3 .

What course of action has the author suggested for the SC ?

A.    It should refuse to take up the case. B.    It should give a logical judgement on the issue.
C.    It should reprimand the Govt. D.    Both(l)&(3)
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
4 .

Direction : Read the passage given below and answer the following questions:
Should the Supreme Court (SC) be trying to decide whether or not a temple existed at the site ofthe Babri Masjid? Certainly not. The SC is supposed to decide matters of law, not those of archaeology or history. In any case, the evidence regarding archaeological or historical matters is of ten so scanty that scholars debate these issues inconclusively for decades, sometimes forever. It would be ridiculous for the court to deliver any judgement on matters of this nature. The govt has referred this matter to the court to escape the political flak that will fly if it takes a decision itself. But politics is not meant to provide simple and universally acceptable Solutions to every problem, and dilemmas are commonplace in politics. This is no reason for the govt to abdicate its political responsibity and hide behind the skirts of the SC. It needs to show that it has convictions of its own, that it can lead people instead of being led by communal passions.
The SC has taken ages to decide whether it will take up the issue or not. It recently asked for clarification whether the govt would abide by its opinion. We do not understand how this is germane. The issue before the court is not a judicial one at all. Even if the PM accepts it, he cannot possibly bind any future govt, and the court should not lay itself open to the possibility of looking very foolish if this happens. Any court verdict on judicial matters is automatically binding on the govt, and the very fact that the court has to seek an ässurance on this issue proves its non-judicial character.  The SC should refuse categoricauy to deliver an opinion on the matter. Indeed, it should pull up the govt for trying to pass the buck on political matter. So far, it seems to be toying with the idea of accepting the buck.

Direction (Q. 4 - 6) : Find the word opposite in meaning to the given word as used in the passage.

Q. Categoricauy

A.    straightforwardly B.    homogeneously
C.    equitably D.    ambiguously
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
5 .

Q. Abide

A.    obstinate B.    obdurate
C.    stubborn D.    flout
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
6 .

Q. Abdicate

A.    renounce B.    relinquish
C.    accept D.    implement
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
7 .

Direction : Read the passage given below and answer the following questions:
Should the Supreme Court (SC) be trying to decide whether or not a temple existed at the site ofthe Babri Masjid? Certainly not. The SC is supposed to decide matters of law, not those of archaeology or history. In any case, the evidence regarding archaeological or historical matters is of ten so scanty that scholars debate these issues inconclusively for decades, sometimes forever. It would be ridiculous for the court to deliver any judgement on matters of this nature. The govt has referred this matter to the court to escape the political flak that will fly if it takes a decision itself. But politics is not meant to provide simple and universally acceptable Solutions to every problem, and dilemmas are commonplace in politics. This is no reason for the govt to abdicate its political responsibity and hide behind the skirts of the SC. It needs to show that it has convictions of its own, that it can lead people instead of being led by communal passions.
The SC has taken ages to decide whether it will take up the issue or not. It recently asked for clarification whether the govt would abide by its opinion. We do not understand how this is germane. The issue before the court is not a judicial one at all. Even if the PM accepts it, he cannot possibly bind any future govt, and the court should not lay itself open to the possibility of looking very foolish if this happens. Any court verdict on judicial matters is automatically binding on the govt, and the very fact that the court has to seek an ässurance on this issue proves its non-judicial character.  The SC should refuse categoricauy to deliver an opinion on the matter. Indeed, it should pull up the govt for trying to pass the buck on political matter. So far, it seems to be toying with the idea of accepting the buck.

Direction : Find the word opposite in meaning to the given word as used in the passage.

Direction (Q. 7 - 10) : Find the word similar in meaning to the given word as used in the passage.

Q. Flak

A.    piece B.    expediency
C.    violence D.    criticism
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
8 .

Q. Pass the buck

A.    shift responsibility B.    pay money
C.    avoid criticism D.    to be inefficient
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
9 .

Q. Germane

A.    correct B.    gentle
C.    relevant D.    judicial
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
10 .

Q. Convictions

A.    guilty B.    sentence
C.    belief D.    criminal
View Answer Workspace Report Discuss in Forum
DMCA.com Protection Status