PrepYodhaClass Notes · English
The first thing to do with an RC passage is:RC अनुच्छेद के साथ पहला काम है:
An option that is true in real life but not supported by the passage is:जो विकल्प वास्तविक जीवन में सही है पर अनुच्छेद से समर्थित नहीं, वह है:
An answer that is not stated outright but follows logically from the text is called a/an:जो उत्तर सीधे नहीं कहा गया पर पाठ से तार्किक रूप से निकलता है, वह कहलाता है:
To judge the author's tone, the best evidence is:लेखक का भाव जाँचने का सर्वोत्तम प्रमाण है:
Passage — read, then answer
Science commands extraordinary authority in the modern imagination, yet its most honest practitioners concede that it is a method, not a metaphysics. It tells us how the physical world behaves with unrivalled precision, but it is silent on the questions that press hardest upon us: whether a life is well lived, whether an act is just, whether beauty is more than a trick of the nervous system.
This silence is not a defect to be remedied by further research; it is structural. The scientific method achieves its power precisely by excluding the subjective, the normative and the singular from its purview. A discipline that measures only what can be repeated and quantified cannot, by definition, pronounce upon the unrepeatable moment or the unquantifiable value. To demand that it do so is to misunderstand the very source of its success.
The danger, then, lies not in science but in scientism — the covert smuggling in of the claim that whatever science cannot measure does not exist. Such a doctrine mistakes the boundaries of a method for the boundaries of reality. It leaves us articulate about means and mute about ends: able to split the atom, yet unable to say why we should not.
The author's central contention is that science's silence on questions of value is:लेखक का केंद्रीय दावा है कि मूल्य-प्रश्नों पर विज्ञान की चुप्पी है:
As used in the passage, "scientism" most nearly means:अनुच्छेद में "scientism" का निकटतम अर्थ है:
The author would regard the claim "value judgments are meaningless because they cannot be measured" as:लेखक इस दावे को — "मूल्य-निर्णय निरर्थक हैं क्योंकि नापे नहीं जा सकते" — मानेगा:
According to the passage, science derives its power from:अनुच्छेद के अनुसार विज्ञान अपनी शक्ति पाता है:
The phrase "able to split the atom, yet unable to say why we should not" is used to:"able to split the atom, yet unable to say why we should not" वाक्यांश का प्रयोग है:
Passage — read, then answer
For the better part of a century, orthodox economics rested on a serene assumption: that human beings, when they buy and sell, act as rational agents coolly maximising their own advantage. The model was elegant, tractable and, as a growing body of evidence suggests, largely fictitious. Real people, it turns out, are swayed by how a choice is framed, by what their neighbours are doing, and by an aversion to loss that dwarfs their appetite for an equivalent gain.
Behavioural economists have catalogued these deviations not as random noise but as systematic and predictable biases. A shopper will travel across town to save ten rupees on a cheap pen, yet not trouble to save the same sum on an expensive coat — though the rupees are identical. Offered a certain gain, most people turn cautious; threatened with a certain loss, the very same people turn into gamblers. Such patterns are not the exceptions to rationality; for most of us, they are the rule.
The implications reach well beyond the marketplace. If citizens can be nudged into saving more for retirement merely by changing a form's default setting, then the architecture of choice becomes a lever of public policy. Critics warn that this same lever can be pulled by those with less benign intentions, and that a science of persuasion, once perfected, does not ask whose ends it serves.
The passage is primarily concerned with:अनुच्छेद मुख्यतः किससे सरोकार रखता है:
The pen-and-coat example is used to show that people:पेन-कोट उदाहरण दिखाता है कि लोग:
It can be concluded that, when faced with a certain loss, most people:निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि निश्चित हानि सामने हो तो अधिकांश लोग:
The passage's treatment of "nudging" is best described as:"nudging" के प्रति अनुच्छेद का रुख सर्वोत्तम रूप से है:
"Architecture" in "the architecture of choice" most nearly means:"the architecture of choice" में "architecture" का निकटतम अर्थ है:
Passage — read, then answer
A society that prizes tolerance above all other virtues soon collides with an uncomfortable question: must it tolerate those who are themselves intolerant? To answer yes seems to invite the tolerant order to underwrite its own destruction; to answer no seems to betray the very principle in whose name the society acts. The difficulty is not merely academic, for every open society must at some point decide how much hostility to openness it can afford to permit.
One influential response holds that tolerance is best understood not as an absolute but as a compact — a mutual undertaking to refrain from coercion. On this view, those who repudiate the compact, who would silence others by force rather than persuade them by argument, place themselves outside its protection. Tolerance, so construed, is "not a suicide pact": it extends to disagreement, however fierce, but not to the resort to violence that would end disagreement altogether.
Yet the remedy carries its own hazard. The power to decide who counts as "intolerant" is precisely the power to exclude, and history offers ample warning of majorities that have branded mere dissent as a threat to public order. The paradox, in the end, cannot be dissolved by a formula; it can only be managed by institutions patient enough to distinguish the genuine enemy of freedom from the merely inconvenient critic.
The "paradox of tolerance," as described, is that:"paradox of tolerance" यह है कि:
The "compact" view resolves the paradox by holding that tolerance:"compact" दृष्टि विरोधाभास सुलझाती है यह मानकर कि सहिष्णुता:
The phrase "not a suicide pact" implies that tolerance:"not a suicide pact" वाक्यांश का अर्थ है कि सहिष्णुता:
In the third paragraph the author warns that the compact solution:तीसरे अनुच्छेद में लेखक चेताता है कि compact हल:
The author ultimately suggests that the paradox:लेखक अंततः सुझाता है कि यह विरोधाभास:
Passage — read, then answer
When we speak of the harm carbon dioxide does to the climate, we usually mean the heat it traps in the atmosphere. But roughly a third of the gas we emit never stays in the air at all; it dissolves into the oceans, where it sets off a quieter and less familiar crisis. As the gas reacts with seawater it forms a weak acid, and over the past two centuries the surface waters of the sea have grown measurably more acidic than at any point in the preceding millions of years.
The consequences fall first upon the smallest creatures. Corals, certain plankton and shellfish build their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate, a mineral that dissolves more readily in acidic water. As acidity rises, these organisms must spend more energy to build and maintain their structures, and some can no longer build them at all. Because such creatures sit at the base of the marine food web, their distress does not stay contained; it propagates upward to the fish on which millions of people depend.
What makes the problem peculiarly stubborn is its inertia. Even if every smokestack fell silent tomorrow, the carbon already dissolved would take centuries to disperse, and the chemistry would run on long after the last emission. Acidification is thus a reminder that the ocean does not forgive on human timescales; it keeps a ledger, and the entries we make today will be read by generations who had no hand in writing them.
The passage is chiefly about:अनुच्छेद मुख्यतः किस बारे में है:
Acidic seawater harms corals and shellfish because it:अम्लीय समुद्री जल मूँगा व शंख को हानि पहुँचाता है क्योंकि यह:
The reference to creatures at "the base of the marine food web" implies that:"marine food web के आधार" वाले जीवों का उल्लेख संकेत देता है कि:
The passage calls the problem "stubborn" mainly because:अनुच्छेद समस्या को "stubborn" कहता है मुख्यतः क्योंकि:
The image of the ocean keeping "a ledger" chiefly conveys that:समुद्र द्वारा "ledger" रखने का बिम्ब मुख्यतः बताता है कि:
Passage — read, then answer
The rise of the digital platform has been heralded as a liberation of labour: work when you wish, for whom you wish, unshackled from the nine-to-five. Behind the rhetoric of flexibility, however, lies a quieter rearrangement of risk. The costs and uncertainties that firms once absorbed — idle time, sickness, the lull between orders — have been transferred, almost invisibly, onto the shoulders of the individual worker.
The platform is careful to call this worker a "partner" rather than an employee, and the distinction is not merely verbal. An employee is owed a minimum wage, paid leave and the protection of labour law; a partner, in principle self-employed, is owed none of these. Yet the same platform that disclaims the duties of an employer often retains its powers — dictating prices, monitoring performance and deactivating those who fall short. The worker thus enjoys the insecurity of self-employment with little of its autonomy.
Defenders reply that millions choose such work freely, and that for many it is a welcome supplement or a bridge between jobs. The rejoinder is not that platforms should be abolished, but that the categories of law have lagged behind the facts of work. Until they catch up, a growing share of the workforce will occupy a legal grey zone — too independent to be protected, too controlled to be truly free.
The central argument of the passage is that gig platforms:अनुच्छेद का केंद्रीय तर्क है कि gig platforms:
Calling the worker a "partner" rather than an employee allows the platform to:कर्मी को "partner" कहने से platform को यह सुविधा मिलती है कि वह:
"The worker enjoys the insecurity of self-employment with little of its autonomy" is best read as:"…insecurity of self-employment with little of its autonomy" को सर्वोत्तम रूप से पढ़ा जाए:
The author's own position is that platforms should be:लेखक का अपना पक्ष है कि platforms को:
"Grey zone," as used in the last paragraph, refers to:अंतिम अनुच्छेद में "grey zone" संकेत करता है:
Passage — read, then answer
It was long an article of scientific faith that the adult brain was essentially fixed — that its circuitry, laid down in youth, could only decay thereafter. The picture that has replaced this doctrine is at once more hopeful and more demanding. The brain, we now know, remains plastic throughout life, continually reshaping its connections in response to what it is asked to do. But plasticity is a double-edged endowment: the same mechanism that lets us learn a language at sixty also lets disuse hollow out abilities we cease to exercise.
This reframing shifts the burden from fate to habit. If the ageing mind is not a machine winding down but a garden responding to cultivation, then its condition depends in part on how it is tended. Novelty, difficulty and sustained attention appear to be the nutrients that matter; the passive repetition of the already-mastered does little. The brain, in short, invests in what it is regularly required to perform and quietly divests from the rest.
None of this should be mistaken for a promise that effort conquers all. Age brings genuine losses that no regimen can wholly reverse, and the marketing of "brain-training" games has often outrun the evidence. The sober conclusion is narrower but real: within limits set by biology, the trajectory of the ageing mind is not fixed in advance, and a portion of it lies, unglamorously, in our own keeping.
The passage mainly argues that the ageing brain:अनुच्छेद मुख्यतः तर्क देता है कि वृद्ध मस्तिष्क:
According to the passage, the brain is best maintained by:अनुच्छेद के अनुसार मस्तिष्क सर्वोत्तम रूप से बना रहता है:
The comparison of the mind to "a garden responding to cultivation" suggests that the brain:मस्तिष्क की "cultivation पर प्रतिक्रिया देते बगीचे" से तुलना बताती है कि मस्तिष्क:
Calling plasticity "double-edged" implies that:plasticity को "double-edged" कहना संकेत देता है कि:
The author's stance toward "brain-training" games is:"brain-training" खेलों के प्रति लेखक का रुख है:
Passage — read, then answer
We tend to read a first-person narrator as a window onto the story — a voice that, whatever its style, reports faithfully what occurred. The unreliable narrator quietly shatters this trust. Here the teller of the tale is not a neutral witness but an interested party, whose account we come to suspect is distorted by ignorance, self-deception or design. The pleasure of such fiction lies in the widening gap between what the narrator says and what the reader, reading against the grain, comes to believe.
The device is subtler than mere lying. A narrator who simply lied could be corrected once and dismissed; the truly unreliable narrator remains sympathetic, even persuasive, so that we are complicit in the very illusion we are being invited to see through. The author communicates over the narrator's head, planting details whose significance the narrator misses but the attentive reader does not. To read such a book well is to hold two stories in mind at once: the one being told, and the one leaking through the telling.
This doubleness is precisely the point. By denying us a reliable guide, the novelist compels us to become interpreters rather than mere recipients, weighing evidence and revising judgments as a reader of the real world must. The unreliable narrator is thus less a trick than a training: it returns to us, in the safe space of fiction, the very uncertainty that the honest reading of any human testimony demands.
An unreliable narrator, as described, is one whose account is:यहाँ वर्णित unreliable narrator वह है जिसका विवरण:
The passage distinguishes the unreliable narrator from a mere liar by noting that the former:अनुच्छेद unreliable narrator को साधारण झूठे से अलग करता है यह कहकर कि वह:
"The author communicates over the narrator's head" means the author:"…communicates over the narrator's head" का अर्थ है कि लेखक:
The author claims the deeper value of the unreliable narrator is that it:लेखक का दावा है कि unreliable narrator का गहरा मूल्य यह है कि वह:
"Complicit" in the second paragraph most nearly means:दूसरे अनुच्छेद में "complicit" का निकटतम अर्थ है:
Passage — read, then answer
The discovery of antibiotics was among the great deliverances of modern medicine, turning once-lethal infections into minor inconveniences. Yet the very triumph carried the seed of its own undoing. Every course of an antibiotic is also an act of selection: it kills the susceptible bacteria and spares the few that happen to resist, and those survivors, multiplying unchecked, bequeath their resistance to the next generation. We have, in effect, been breeding the very enemy we sought to destroy.
The pace of this evolution is quickened by our own conduct. Antibiotics prescribed for viral illnesses they cannot touch, courses abandoned halfway, and the wholesale dosing of livestock to fatten them faster all bathe the bacterial world in selective pressure. Meanwhile the pipeline of new drugs has thinned to a trickle, for the economics are unforgiving: a medicine taken for a week yields far less to its maker than one taken for life, and so investment has drained away just as the need has sharpened.
The result is a slow-motion emergency in which remedy and disease are locked in an arms race the disease is well placed to win. Bacteria reproduce in hours and number in the trillions; our countermeasures take a decade to develop and a fortune to bring to market. Averting the danger will require not a single breakthrough but a change of habits — using what we have more sparingly, so that the drugs still working are not squandered before their successors arrive.
The passage's central point is that antibiotic resistance is:अनुच्छेद का केंद्रीय बिंदु है कि एंटीबायोटिक प्रतिरोध:
Antibiotic use promotes resistance because it:एंटीबायोटिक का प्रयोग प्रतिरोध बढ़ाता है क्योंकि यह:
Which of the following is cited as accelerating resistance?इनमें से क्या प्रतिरोध को तेज़ करने वाला बताया गया है?
The passage suggests that few new antibiotics are developed because:अनुच्छेद सुझाता है कि नए एंटीबायोटिक कम बनते हैं क्योंकि:
The author argues the danger will be averted mainly by:लेखक का तर्क है कि खतरा मुख्यतः टलेगा:
Passage — read, then answer
A city is, among other things, a vast experiment in sharing. Its streets, parks, air and water are commons — resources owned by no one and used by all — and the quality of urban life depends on how well these shared things are kept. The tragedy that classical theory predicted for such commons is familiar: where each user gains the whole benefit of taking more while the cost of depletion is spread across everyone, the rational individual overuses, and the shared resource collapses.
Yet real cities do not always follow the gloomy script. Communities have repeatedly devised rules, informal and formal, that restrain the grabbing hand — a neighbourhood that polices its own park, a market that agrees on closing hours, a locality that shames the polluter. What such arrangements share is not central command but a dense web of mutual expectation, in which the watching eyes of neighbours enforce what no law reaches. The commons, it seems, can be saved by the very proximity that cities create.
The threat to this quiet machinery is anonymity. As a settlement swells and its residents become strangers to one another, the social pressure that once curbed misuse loses its grip; the polluter no longer fears the neighbour's gaze because there is no neighbour, only a passing crowd. The deepest challenge of the modern metropolis, then, is not merely to build infrastructure but to reconstruct, among millions of strangers, some fraction of the accountability that the village once enforced for free.
The passage is primarily about:अनुच्छेद मुख्यतः किस बारे में है:
The predicted "tragedy of the commons" arises because each user:"tragedy of the commons" इसलिए होती है क्योंकि हर उपयोगकर्ता:
According to the passage, shared resources are best protected by:अनुच्छेद के अनुसार साझा संसाधन सर्वोत्तम रूप से रक्षित होते हैं:
The chief threat to this self-regulation is:इस स्व-नियमन का मुख्य खतरा है:
The "deepest challenge" of the modern city, per the author, is to:लेखक के अनुसार आधुनिक नगर की "सबसे गहरी चुनौती" है:
Passage — read, then answer
A machine that can compose an essay, answer a question or translate a poem invites an old philosophical question in a new and urgent form: does it understand what it produces, or does it merely manipulate symbols whose meaning lies entirely in our heads? The performance is undeniably impressive; the interpretation of that performance is where thoughtful people part company. To some, competence of this order simply is understanding; to others, it is an elaborate mimicry that no amount of fluency can convert into comprehension.
The sceptics press a pointed analogy. Imagine a person locked in a room, following an immense rulebook that tells her which symbols to pass out in response to those passed in. To those outside she appears to understand the language, yet she grasps not a word; she manipulates shapes by their form, never their meaning. A machine, the argument runs, is such a room writ large — its every output the product of rules operating on symbols, with genuine understanding nowhere in the mechanism.
Defenders answer that the analogy proves less than it claims. Understanding, they suggest, may not reside in any single component but may emerge from the system as a whole, much as no single neuron in a human brain understands anything either. The dispute has not been settled, and perhaps cannot be by argument alone; but it has already taught us something humbling — that we possess no agreed test for a capacity we confidently ascribe to ourselves and just as confidently deny to our machines.
The passage centres on the question of whether machines:अनुच्छेद इस प्रश्न पर केंद्रित है कि क्या मशीनें:
The "person locked in a room" analogy is used to argue that:"कमरे में बंद व्यक्ति" उपमा यह तर्क देने के लिए है कि:
The room analogy is advanced by:कमरे वाली उपमा किसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत की जाती है:
The defenders' reply rests on the idea that understanding:रक्षकों का उत्तर इस विचार पर टिका है कि समझ:
The passage's closing observation is chiefly that:अनुच्छेद का समापन-कथन मुख्यतः यह है कि:
12 tough questions on RC technique — the reasoning that separates the top scorers. Tap an option to check, then read Why.
RC तकनीक पर 12 कठिन प्रश्न — वही तर्क जो शीर्ष अंक दिलाता है। जाँचने के लिए विकल्प पर टैप करें, फिर Why पढ़ें।