Question

In the above passage, the author uses a/an__________ to strengthen his argument.

• A. Metaphor
• B. Analogy
• C. Personification
• D. None of the above
• A. State must not interfere at all with the individual‘s right to drink.
• B. Liberalism has always been misunderstood.
• C. It is very difficult to discuss any issue relating to personal freedom of individuals with rationality in India
• D. None of the above.
• A. The State should not interfere with people‘s right to drink; but there will be a backlash if drinking takes forms that inflict great social harms.
• B. Freedom should not be divorced from Moderation.
• C. The State should not interfere in matters of sexuality or intimacy. But norms of freedom will impose serious costs and will not survive if the expressions of sexuality are consistently degrading or violent, as we have seen in the locker room scandals.
• D. All of the above
• A. Liberals should not be concerned about prohibition on Alcohol at all
• B. Moralism should be based on justified ideals.
• C. Moralism must not be the basis of any State action.
• D. All of the above.
• A. I, II and III
• B. II and IV
• C. II, III and IV
• D. I, II, III and IV.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct option is (B): Analogy

Answer 2

The Gorbachev passage tells the story of the 1985 Soviet anti-alcohol campaign, its public health benefits, its economic damage, and even a joke about long queues, before turning to India's post-lockdown handling of crowds at liquor stores. We need to identify the figure of speech being used to make this connection.

1. Metaphor: A metaphor is a single word or short phrase used in place of another to suggest a resemblance, such as calling an argument a "battle." The author does not substitute one word for another here; instead he builds a full historical narrative and then places India's situation next to it for comparison, which is a different technique.
2. Analogy: An analogy compares two separate situations point by point to make a broader argument clearer. The author sets out the Gorbachev campaign in detail, including its unintended political and economic fallout, and then draws a parallel to India's own struggle to rationally handle alcohol policy after the lockdown. This extended, structured comparison between two real historical situations is exactly what an analogy is.
3. Personification: Personification means giving human qualities to a non-human thing, an idea, or an object. Nothing in the passage is treated as if it were a person; both halves of the comparison, Soviet policy and Indian policy, involve real people and real events, so personification is not being used.
4. None of the above: Since the comparison fits the definition of analogy, this cannot be the answer.

Because the author lays out a real historical episode and uses it point by point to illuminate a present day issue, this technique is best described as an analogy rather than a single-word metaphor or personification.

So the correct answer is Analogy.

Answer 3

The correct option is (D): None of the above.

Answer 4

An inference question asks what can safely be concluded from the passage, without adding claims the passage does not actually support. Let's test each option against the passage's exact wording.

1. State must not interfere at all with the individual's right to drink: The passage says liberals should be "suspicious" of prohibition on moral and practical grounds, which is a caution, not an absolute rule against any interference whatsoever. The passage does not go as far as ruling out every possible form of state involvement, so this inference overstates the text.
2. Liberalism has always been misunderstood: The passage says alcohol is "a window on how liberalism has been misunderstood," which describes one example, not a claim that liberalism has always, in every context and time, been misunderstood. Extending a single illustration into a permanent, universal claim goes beyond what the text says.
3. It is very difficult to discuss any issue relating to personal freedom of individuals with rationality in India: The passage specifically says alcohol is "difficult... to rationally discuss," but this is about alcohol as one particular flashpoint in India's culture wars, not a general statement covering every personal freedom issue. Broadening one example to "any issue" is an unsupported leap.
4. None of the above: Since each of the first three options stretches the passage's specific, limited statements into broader claims the text does not make, none of them can be safely inferred, which makes this the accurate choice.

Each of the first three statements takes a narrow, example-specific remark from the passage and turns it into an absolute or universal claim, which is not something inference questions allow.

So the correct answer is None of the above.

Answer 5

The correct option is (D): All of the above

Answer 6

The argument being tested is that moralism on alcohol cannot be the basis of state policy. A statement weakens this argument if it shows situations where some form of state or social limit on personal freedom is, in fact, justified. Let's check each option.

1. The State should not interfere with people's right to drink; but there will be a backlash if drinking takes forms that inflict great social harms: This concedes that once personal conduct causes great social harms, some form of restriction or social response becomes justified. That carve out chips away at the blanket claim that moral or harm-based considerations can never guide alcohol policy, so it weakens the argument.
2. Freedom should not be divorced from Moderation: This links freedom to a limiting principle, moderation, suggesting that unrestrained freedom is not the ideal the state should always protect. This too works against an absolute claim that policy can never be shaped by such moral or restraining considerations.
3. The State should not interfere in matters of sexuality or intimacy, but norms of freedom will impose serious costs and will not survive if the expressions are consistently degrading or violent, as seen in the locker room scandals: Using a parallel example from sexuality, this again shows that freedom is not treated as absolute even by liberal reasoning; once conduct turns degrading or harmful, some social or policy response becomes justified. By analogy, the same logic applies to alcohol, weakening the blanket claim that moralism can never be the basis of policy.
4. All of the above: Each of the three statements independently shows a situation where unrestricted personal freedom gives way to some justified limit once real harm is involved. Together, they build a broader case that state policy on alcohol cannot ignore harm-based or moral limits entirely, which weakens the original absolute argument.

Since every one of the three statements chips away at the "never" in the original argument by identifying a harm-based exception, combining them gives the strongest weakening effect.

So the correct answer is All of the above.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B): Moralism should be based on justified ideals.

Answer 8

The passage says liberals should "rightly" be suspicious of prohibition, and separately says that moralism or puritanism, without more, "has no basis" and violates dignity and freedom. We need the option that matches this nuanced position rather than an extreme version of it.

1. Liberals should not be concerned about prohibition on Alcohol at all: The passage says liberals should be "suspicious" of prohibition, which is itself a form of active concern, not indifference. Saying they should have no concern at all contradicts the passage directly.
2. Moralism should be based on justified ideals: The passage criticises moralism that "has no basis" and calls bare puritanism on alcohol an unjustified violation of dignity and freedom. Read carefully, this criticism is about unjustified moralism specifically, which implies that moral reasoning grounded in a genuine, justified basis is treated differently. This matches the passage's actual, narrower objection.
3. Moralism must not be the basis of any State action: The passage's objection is targeted at moralism that "has no basis," not at every possible moral consideration in every area of state action. Turning this into a total ban on moral reasoning in government goes further than what the text actually claims.
4. All of the above: Since the first and third statements overstate or misstate the passage's position, this combined option cannot be correct.

The passage's real target is baseless, puritanical moralism, not moral reasoning as such, so a properly grounded position on moralism is the one the passage actually supports.

So the correct answer is Moralism should be based on justified ideals.

Answer 9

The correct option is (C): II, III and IV

Answer 10

The passage argues against outright prohibition driven by unjustified moralism, but does not argue against the state managing real, harm-based risks of alcohol use. We need to sort the four listed measures accordingly.

1. Ban on Alcohol shops: A blanket ban is a prohibition style measure, exactly the kind of moralistic, all-or-nothing state action the passage argues against. Including this measure does not fit the passage's own reasoning.
2. Education on Intelligent Drinking: Educating people so they can make informed choices about drinking respects individual freedom while addressing real risks, which fits comfortably within the passage's harm-focused, non-prohibition approach.
3. Regulating Outlet density of Alcohol shops: Controlling how densely packed alcohol outlets are, rather than banning them outright, is a moderate regulatory tool that manages practical problems, such as overcrowding and public disorder, without a full ban. This also fits the passage's reasoning.
4. Community Intervention Policy: Local, community-level programmes that address alcohol related harm are consistent with targeting genuine social harm without resorting to blanket prohibition, matching the passage's stated concern for reducing real harm through practical means.

Since a full ban on shops mirrors the prohibition the passage specifically criticises, while education, outlet density regulation, and community intervention all address real harms without amounting to prohibition, only the last three measures fit the passage's reasoning.

So the correct answer is II, III and IV.