Question

Which of the following can be inferred about the author’s views on English in contemporary India?

• A. The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity.
• B. English is not an Indian language.
• C. English language fluency does not necessarily imply competence.
• D. People’s views on English are divided along political lines.
• A. Savitha… English-medium, upper-middle class; fumbles in interviews due to nervousness.
• B. Moin… milkman’s background; learns English at 17; becomes a spoken-English instructor.
• C. Both (A) and (B)
• D. Neither (A) nor (B)
• A. Dismisses him as a self-appointed expert.
• B. Completely agrees with his views.
• C. Neither agrees nor disagrees.
• D. Considers his views and finds that they lack nuance.
• A. English should not be taught as a subject in Indian universities.
• B. English proficiency is vital in order to gain entry into the bureaucracy.
• C. Indian women cannot get rich if they do not know English.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Stark, sharp
• B. Sophisticated, spoil
• C. Conundrum, problem
• D. Cohesive, united

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1 (Extract the author’s claim).
The passage opens: “English encodes class in India… sliding into the DNA of social division: income, caste, gender, religion or place of belonging.” This explicitly links English proficiency/access to where you are from and who you are in social terms.
Step 2 (Check alternatives).
(B) may be suggested by Gandhi’s description of English as a “foreign medium,” but the author’s focus is not on denying its Indianness; it’s on access and inequality.
(C) is hinted at (E2s can be “equally intelligent… yet appear incompetent”), but the clearest, direct statement is the dependence on social identity and place.
(D) Mentions “across the political spectrum,” which implies broad concern, not sharp division by politics.
Step 3 (Conclude).
Thus (A) captures the author’s central, explicit view.
\[ \boxed{\text{(A) The ability to speak English depends on place and social identity}} \]

Answer 2

The question asks what can be inferred about the author's view on English in India today, based on the whole passage rather than a single line. Each option needs to be checked against what the author actually argues, not what any one character (Gandhi or Bhagat) says.

1. The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity: The author opens by saying English "encodes class in India" by "sliding into the DNA of social division: income, caste, gender, religion or place of belonging," and later adds that a person is "more likely to learn English if you are born a man rather than a woman, high caste rather than low caste, south Indian rather than north Indian." This is a direct, repeated claim made in the author's own voice.
2. English is not an Indian language: Gandhi calls English a "foreign medium," but that is Gandhi's historical objection to it as a medium of instruction, not the author's own argument. The author's essay is about unequal access to English, not about whether English counts as Indian.
3. English language fluency does not necessarily imply competence: This idea appears inside Bhagat's E1/E2 theory, where E2 speakers can be "equally intelligent, creative or hard-working" yet look incompetent in an English interview. It is Bhagat's claim being reported, not a conclusion the author draws as their own central point.
4. People's views on English are divided along political lines: The passage says the language "worried public commentators across the political spectrum," which means concern is widespread across parties, not split along party lines. This option reverses what the line actually says.

The only option built on the author's own repeated statement, rather than borrowed from Gandhi or Bhagat or a misreading of the text, is the first one: that access to English tracks place and social identity.

Therefore, the correct answer is the ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity.

Answer 3

Step 1 (Recall Bhagat’s scheme).
E1: early, privileged access; English is instinctive; much in demand. E2: technically familiar but often judged incompetent by E1s.
Step 2 (Test the cases).
(A) Savitha has E1-type background but underperforms in interviews — contradicts the “instinctive, much in demand” stereotype.
(B) Moin is E2-type by background yet masters English and teaches it — overturns the stereotype that E2s remain subordinate.
Step 3 (Conclude).
Both cases violate the “neat” E1/E2 boxes, aligning with the author’s point that “there is more than one kind of E1 and… E2,” and E2s can “overthrow E1s.”
\[ \boxed{\text{(C) Both (A) and (B)}} \]

Answer 4

The question gives two example people and asks which of them break Chetan Bhagat's E1/E2 rule. Recall the rule: E1 speakers get English early through privilege and are "much in demand," while E2 speakers are only "technically familiar" with English and look less competent even if they are equally capable. Each example needs to be checked against this rule on its own.

1. Savitha: She fits the E1 background (English-medium schooling, upper-middle class), yet she fumbles in interviews out of nervousness rather than performing with the confidence Bhagat's theory predicts for E1s. Her outcome contradicts the E1 stereotype, so she breaks the rule.
2. Moin: He starts from an E2-type background (a milkman's family, no early English), yet he goes on to master English well enough to teach it to others. This overturns the assumption that E2 speakers stay permanently behind E1 speakers, so he also breaks the rule.
3. Both (A) and (B): Since Savitha's case and Moin's case each independently fail to match Bhagat's E1/E2 prediction, both people count as exceptions to the categorisation.
4. Neither (A) nor (B): This would only be correct if both examples behaved exactly as Bhagat's theory predicts, which is not the case for either of them.

Because Savitha undercuts the E1 stereotype and Moin undercuts the E2 stereotype, the categorisation fails for both examples together, matching the author's own point that "there is more than one kind of E1 and more than one kind of E2."

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (B).

Answer 5

Step 1 (Note the author’s stance).
The author outlines Bhagat’s argument, then qualifies it: “The situation may not be so comically stark… There is more than one kind of E1… and more than one way E2s can overthrow E1s.”
Step 2 (Eliminate others).
(A) Too harsh; the author reports Bhagat’s role but does not merely dismiss him. (B) False — the author explicitly complicates Bhagat’s view. (C) False — the author takes a position (adds nuance).
Step 3 (Match).
Therefore (D) best describes the response.
\[ \boxed{\text{(D) Lacks nuance}} \]

Answer 6

This question asks how the author reacts to Bhagat's E1/E2 theory overall, so the answer has to reflect the author's tone across the whole passage, not just one sentence.

1. Dismisses him as a self-appointed expert: The author does call Bhagat a "self-appointed leader of a class war," which sounds sharp, but the author still spends several paragraphs explaining and engaging with his theory in detail rather than brushing it aside. A true dismissal would not include that much discussion.
2. Completely agrees with his views: The author writes, "the situation may not be so comically stark," which directly pushes back against Bhagat's neat E1/E2 split, so full agreement is ruled out.
3. Neither agrees nor disagrees: The author does take a position, pointing out that Bhagat's theory "does not factor in many other walls around English in India," such as gender, caste, and region. That is an active stance, not neutrality.
4. Considers his views and finds that they lack nuance: The author engages seriously with Bhagat's argument first, then shows it misses other factors and oversimplifies the picture. This matches an author who takes the theory seriously but finds it incomplete.

The passage shows real engagement with Bhagat's theory, followed by a clear complication of it rather than outright rejection or agreement, which points to the fourth option.

Therefore, the correct answer is the author considers his views and finds that they lack nuance.

Answer 7

Step 1 (Use Gandhi’s quote).
“Boys think… that without English they cannot get government service. Girls are taught English as a passport to marriage.”
Step 2 (Infer carefully).
The perception (and reality, in context) is that English is necessary for government employment — i.e., bureaucracy.
Step 3 (Eliminate).
(A) He criticises English as a medium of instruction, not as a subject. (C) Not stated or implied.
\[ \boxed{\text{(B) English is vital for entry into government service}} \]

Answer 8

The question asks what can be inferred from Gandhi's quoted remarks about English in the years after independence. The direct quote in the passage should be the anchor for testing every option.

1. English should not be taught as a subject in Indian universities: Gandhi's objection in the passage is to English as the "medium of instruction," meaning the language used to teach other subjects, not to English being taught as a subject in its own right. This option changes what he actually objected to.
2. English proficiency is vital in order to gain entry into the bureaucracy: Gandhi says "our boys think, and rightly in the present circumstances, that without English they cannot get government service." Government service is bureaucracy, and Gandhi calls this belief "right," so this is a direct, supported inference.
3. Indian women cannot get rich if they do not know English: Gandhi's actual line is that girls were taught English "as a passport to marriage," which is about marriage prospects, not wealth. This option substitutes a claim Gandhi never makes.
4. None of the above: This is only correct if none of the first three options hold up, but the second option is directly supported by the quote, so this cannot be right.

Since Gandhi explicitly links the lack of English to being unable to get government service, and even endorses that belief as accurate for the time, the passage supports the idea that English was necessary for entry into the bureaucracy.

Therefore, the correct answer is English proficiency is vital in order to gain entry into the bureaucracy.

Answer 9

Step 1 (Check meanings).
(A) Stark (plain, severe) can align with sharp/clear in context — near-synonymous.
(C) Conundrum ≈ problem/puzzle.
(D) Cohesive ≈ united/connected.
(B) Sophisticated (refined/complex) is the opposite of spoil (to ruin/damage). Not synonymous.
Step 2 (Identify the exception).
Thus (B) is the non-synonymous pair.
\[ \boxed{\text{(B) Sophisticated, spoil}} \]

Answer 10

This question asks which pair of words is NOT a synonym pair, so each pair needs to be checked for whether the two words genuinely share a meaning.

1. Stark, sharp: "Stark" means plain, severe, or clearly obvious, as in a "stark contrast." "Sharp" can also describe something clear-cut or strongly defined, as in a "sharp contrast" or "sharp difference." Used this way, the two words overlap closely enough to count as synonyms.
2. Sophisticated, spoil: "Sophisticated" describes something refined, complex, or highly developed, such as sophisticated technology or a sophisticated argument. "Spoil" means to ruin or damage something, or to over-indulge a person. These two words point in different directions and do not share a common meaning.
3. Conundrum, problem: A "conundrum" is a confusing or difficult question or puzzle, which is simply a specific kind of "problem." The two words are close enough in meaning to be treated as synonyms here.
4. Cohesive, united: "Cohesive" describes something that sticks together and forms a consistent whole, and "united" describes people or things joined together in agreement or purpose. Both point to the same idea of being joined as one, so they work as synonyms.

Three of the four pairs share a genuine overlap in meaning, while "sophisticated" and "spoil" describe unrelated ideas, refinement versus damage, so that pair does not belong with the rest.

Therefore, the correct answer is Sophisticated, spoil.