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, an above-average student in an English medium school in Mumbai, belongs to an upper-middle class family. Public speaking makes her extremely nervous and she fumbles through all her interviews
• B. Moin, once a milkman in Ranchi, learns English at the age of 17. After a lot of hard work, he becomes an instructor of spoken English at a thriving institute.
• C. Both (A) and (B)
• D. Neither (A) nor (B)
• A. The author dismisses his views as a self-appointed expert.
• B. The author completely agrees with his views.
• C. The author neither agrees nor disagrees with his views
• D. The author 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, spoilt
• C. crusade, campaign
• D. cohesion, unity

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A):The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity.

Answer 2

The question asks what can be inferred about the author's views on English in India today. Let's test each option against what the passage actually argues.

1. The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity: The passage says directly that a person is more likely to learn English depending on whether they are a man or a woman, born into a high caste or a low one, from the south or the north. This is a straightforward statement that access to English tracks social identity and geography, which is exactly what the author argues.
2. English is not an Indian language: Nothing in the passage takes this position. The passage is about who gets access to English within India and how that access maps onto class and identity, not about whether English counts as an Indian language at all.
3. English language fluency does not necessarily imply competence: This idea appears in Bhagat's description of E2 speakers, who are technically familiar with English but come across as incompetent in interviews despite being just as capable. But this is presented as Bhagat's framework, which the author goes on to complicate and push back against, not as the author's own settled view.
4. People's views on English are divided along political lines: The passage opens by noting that English's threat to social cohesion has worried commentators across the political spectrum, which suggests broad concern rather than a split along political lines. This does not match the author's argument either.

The author's own argument, laid out through examples of gender, caste, and region, is that access to English is shaped by where you are from and who you are, which lines up with the first option.

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

Answer 3

The correct option is (B):Moin, once a milkman in Ranchi, learns English at the age of 17. After a lot of hard work, he becomes an instructor of spoken English at a thriving institute.

Answer 4

The question asks who defies Bhagat's neat split of Indian English speakers into E1, those born into English through family and schooling, and E2, those who are technically familiar with English but come across as incompetent. Let's check each person against that framework.

1. Savitha, an above-average student in an English medium school in Mumbai, belongs to an upper-middle class family. Public speaking makes her extremely nervous and she fumbles through all her interviews: By Bhagat's own rule, background decides the category, parents who spoke English, access to a good English medium school, early proficiency. Savitha's upbringing places her squarely in E1. Her nervousness affects how she performs in an interview, but that is a personality trait, not a change in which category her background puts her in, so she does not break the E1/E2 split.
2. Moin, once a milkman in Ranchi, learns English at the age of 17. After a lot of hard work, he becomes an instructor of spoken English at a thriving institute: By background alone, Moin would be filed under E2, no English speaking parents, no early exposure, no English medium schooling. Yet he goes on to teach English professionally, becoming exactly the kind of person Bhagat says E2 speakers are not, someone who comes across as competent and in demand. His outcome directly contradicts what Bhagat's category predicts for someone with his background, which is what defying the categorisation means.
3. Both (A) and (B): This only holds if Savitha also breaks the pattern, but her case is about interview nerves affecting performance, not about her background placing her in the wrong category to begin with, so she does not qualify.
4. Neither (A) nor (B): This fails because Moin's case is a clear counterexample, someone predicted to be E2 by background who ends up succeeding at the very thing E1 status is supposed to guarantee.

Savitha's story is consistent with Bhagat's framework even if her interview performance suffers, while Moin's story shows that background does not have to determine outcome, which is the actual gap in Bhagat's categorisation.

Therefore, the correct answer is Moin, once a milkman in Ranchi, learns English at the age of 17. After a lot of hard work, he becomes an instructor of spoken English at a thriving institute.

Answer 5

The correct option is (D):The author considers his views and finds that they lack nuance.

Answer 6

The question asks how the author responds to Bhagat's views on English. Let's weigh each option against the tone and content of that part of the passage.

1. The author dismisses his views as a self-appointed expert: The passage does describe Bhagat as a self-appointed leader of a class war, which carries a note of skepticism, but the author still engages seriously with his E1/E2 framework instead of waving it away outright, so outright dismissal overstates the response.
2. The author completely agrees with his views: This cannot be right, since the passage goes on to say the situation may not be so comically stark and that Bhagat's argument does not factor in other divisions like gender, caste, and region. Full agreement would not be followed by that kind of pushback.
3. The author neither agrees nor disagrees with his views: The author does take a position, pointing out specific gaps in Bhagat's argument, gender, caste, region, rather than staying neutral. Simply describing without judging would not include that critique.
4. The author considers his views and finds that they lack nuance: The passage lays out Bhagat's E1/E2 framework in detail first, then says the real situation is not as comically stark as his categories suggest, and lists factors his argument leaves out. That is engaging with an idea seriously and then showing where it falls short, which is what finding something lacks nuance looks like.

The author takes Bhagat's framework seriously enough to explain it fully, then complicates it by pointing to gender, caste, and regional divides that his E1/E2 split does not capture, which is a considered critique rather than dismissal, full agreement, or neutrality.

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

Answer 7

The correct option is (B):English proficiency is vital in order to gain entry into the bureaucracy.

Answer 8

The question asks what can be inferred from Gandhi's quoted views on English in post-independence India. Let's check each option against what the quotation actually says.

1. English should not be taught as a subject in Indian universities: Gandhi's objection in the quotation is to English as the medium of instruction for higher education, the language teaching happens in, not to English being taught as one subject among others. This option overstates his position.
2. English proficiency is vital in order to gain entry into the bureaucracy: Gandhi says boys think, rightly in the circumstances of the time, that without English they cannot get government service. Government service is the bureaucracy, so this is a direct restatement of what he says.
3. Indian women cannot get rich if they do not know English: Gandhi's quotation says girls are taught English as a passport to marriage, which is about marriage prospects, not about wealth. This option swaps in a claim the quotation does not make.
4. None of the above: This fails because the second option is a fair, direct inference from the text.

Gandhi's own words tie English specifically to getting government jobs for boys and to marriage prospects for girls, so the inference about bureaucratic entry follows directly from the quotation, while the other options either overstate his point or substitute a different claim.

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

Answer 9

The correct option is (B):sophisticated, spoilt

Answer 10

The question asks which pair of words is not a pair of synonyms. Let's check the meaning of each pair.

1. stark, sharp: Stark can mean harsh, severe, or starkly clear and undeniable, and sharp can carry that same sense of something being harsh, distinct, or clearly defined, as in a stark contrast or a sharp contrast. These two overlap closely enough to count as synonyms in this sense.
2. sophisticated, spoilt: Sophisticated describes someone or something refined, cultured, or complex, while spoilt describes someone whose character has been harmed by being overindulged, or something ruined or damaged. A sophisticated person is not the same as a spoilt one, these two words point to different, unrelated qualities.
3. crusade, campaign: A crusade is a vigorous, sustained effort or campaign for a cause, and a campaign is itself an organised course of action toward a goal. These words are close enough in everyday use to be treated as synonyms.
4. cohesion, unity: Cohesion is the state of sticking together or holding together as a whole, and unity is the state of being united or joined as one. These describe essentially the same idea of togetherness.

Three of the four pairs describe closely related or overlapping ideas, harshness and clarity, sustained effort toward a cause, and holding together as one. Sophisticated and spoilt describe two separate, unrelated qualities, one about refinement and one about being overindulged or damaged, so this pair breaks the pattern.

Therefore, the correct answer is sophisticated, spoilt.