Comprehension
On the day of writing this, India had reported 116 deaths from COVID-19. In contrast, the US, with around one-fourth the population of India, reported 1,897 deaths, or 16 times the daily deaths as India. The UK, which has one-twentieth the population of India, reported 592 deaths, or 5 times the daily deaths as India. On other metrics too-new cases, active cases-the Indian curve has flattened. If and when the UK and the US achieve what we have, there will be major celebrations. Such low death rates would be seen as a victory of the government, citizens and science over the dreaded coronavirus. However, because we are India, we don’t get as much credit. We are considered poor, third-world and untrustworthy, incapable of achieving something like this on our own. Instead of learning from India’s experience, the first instinct is to doubt Indian data. We aren’t counting the cases right, we aren’t doing enough tests, we don’t classify the deaths properly-the list of doubts goes on and on. This, even as the tests have only increased, positivity rate has dropped and almost all Indian hospitals are seeing a drop in COVID-19 admissions and fatalities. To think that the Deep Indian State is capable of fudging data at the level of every district and every state, and sustaining this façade for months is giving it way too much credit. Conspiracies require enormous co-ordination and effort and it isn’t quite how things work in India. Given that you can check corona data at every ward level, it is also impossible to fudge data, not to mention create a downwards curve that is moving in the same direction in virtually every corner of India. In terms of testing, while a case might be made for a lot of Indians not getting tested, it is also true that random testing has increased in the last few months. Domestic flyers into Maharashtra from many states for instance, have to get a COVID-19 test done irrespective of symptoms. If there was rampant corona, we would see a spike in cases from just these flyers. It may be hard for people to accept this reality but almost all evidence points to the fact India has flattened the corona curve, while the US, UK and most of Europe still haven’t. What is even more remarkable about India’s achievement is that it has managed to do this without draconian lockdowns (apart from the two months in April-May 2020). In fact, cases have dropped even as India opened up more.
Question: 1
Which of the following strengthens the author’s argument that India has tackled the COVID-19 pandemic better than most advanced nations?
Which of the following strengthens the author’s argument that India has tackled the COVID-19 pandemic better than most advanced nations?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- India’s positivity rate of COVID-19 cases and admissions in Indian hospitals are reduced.
- India’s counting of the number of COVID-19 cases is incorrect.
- India’s testing facilities for COVID-19 cases are inadequate.
- India’s classification of COVID-19 cases is inaccurate.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Answer is (A): India’s positivity rate of COVID-19 cases and admissions in Indian hospitals are reduced.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The author is arguing that India has handled COVID-19 well, so the option that strengthens this argument must be one that supports the claim of genuine improvement, while the doubts about India's data, undercounting, weak testing, misclassification, are exactly what the author is arguing against.
- India's positivity rate of COVID-19 cases and admissions in Indian hospitals are reduced: A falling positivity rate together with fewer hospital admissions is direct, independent evidence that the outbreak is genuinely easing, which supports the author's case rather than casting doubt on it.
- India's counting of the number of COVID-19 cases is incorrect: This is one of the very doubts the passage lists and then argues against; if true, it would undercut India's numbers rather than support them.
- India's testing facilities for COVID-19 cases are inadequate: The passage explicitly rebuts this by noting testing has increased and specific groups, like domestic flyers into Maharashtra, are tested regardless of symptoms. Treating testing as inadequate weakens the author's argument, it does not strengthen it.
- India's classification of COVID-19 cases is inaccurate: Like option (B), this is a doubt the author is pushing back against, so accepting it would work against the author's conclusion.
Only the falling positivity rate and hospital admissions option adds fresh, independent support to the claim that India has genuinely controlled the outbreak.
So the correct answer is India's positivity rate of COVID-19 cases and admissions in Indian hospitals are reduced.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following weakens the author’s argument that India has tackled the COVID19 pandemic better than most advanced nations?
Which of the following weakens the author’s argument that India has tackled the COVID19 pandemic better than most advanced nations?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- India lacks the co-ordination and effort to execute conspiracies.
- Many Indians are possibly not getting tested.
- Evidence points to the fact India has flattened the corona curve.
- India has not imposed draconian lockdowns.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Answer is (B): Many Indians are possibly not getting tested.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The author argues India genuinely controlled COVID-19 and that doubts about its data are misplaced, so the option that weakens this argument should be the one that keeps a real doubt about India's numbers alive rather than supporting the author's case.
- India lacks the co-ordination and effort to execute conspiracies: This is actually part of the author's own reasoning, used to argue that widespread data fudging is implausible, so it supports the author's case rather than weakening it.
- Many Indians are possibly not getting tested: The author's argument depends heavily on testing having increased enough to trust the case numbers. If a meaningful share of the population still is not tested, the low reported numbers could partly reflect missed cases rather than a genuinely controlled outbreak, which cuts against the author's conclusion.
- Evidence points to the fact India has flattened the corona curve: This restates the author's own conclusion, so it reinforces the argument instead of weakening it.
- India has not imposed draconian lockdowns: The author uses this fact to make India's low numbers more impressive, since they were achieved without heavy lockdowns, so this also supports rather than weakens the argument.
Only the possibility that many Indians remain untested reopens the very doubt about undercounting that the author is trying to close off.
So the correct answer is many Indians are possibly not getting tested.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
“To think that the Deep Indian State is capable of fudging data at the level of every district and every state, and sustaining this façade for months is giving it way too much credit.” In this statement, the author indicates that
“To think that the Deep Indian State is capable of fudging data at the level of every district and every state, and sustaining this façade for months is giving it way too much credit.” In this statement, the author indicates that
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- There are unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals.
- There are authorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals.
- There may be unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals, but their influence is questionable.
- There may be unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals, and their influence is deep and pervasive.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Answer is (C): There may be unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals, but their influence is questionable.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The quoted sentence uses the phrase "giving it way too much credit," which signals that the author is skeptical about how much power and coordination a "Deep Indian State" could realistically have, without either fully denying such networks exist or claiming they are powerful and far-reaching.
- There are unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals: This states their existence as settled fact with no hedge, but the author's own wording, "to think that," "way too much credit," carries doubt rather than certainty, so this option overstates the author's position.
- There are authorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals: Calling such networks "authorised" contradicts the very idea of a deep state, which by definition operates outside official, authorised channels, so this option misreads the term.
- There may be unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals, but their influence is questionable: This captures both halves of the author's tone, an acknowledgement that such networks might exist, paired with real doubt, "way too much credit," about whether they are capable of coordinating something this large and sustained.
- There may be unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals, and their influence is deep and pervasive: This keeps the possibility of such networks but then contradicts the author's skepticism by describing their influence as deep and pervasive, which is the opposite of "too much credit."
Only the option that pairs "may exist" with "questionable influence" matches the guarded, skeptical tone of the author's own words.
So the correct answer is there may be unauthorised networks of power operating independently of the Indian state's political leadership in pursuit of their own agenda and goals, but their influence is questionable.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
According to the given passage, which of the following statements is not true?
According to the given passage, which of the following statements is not true?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- Developed nations are reluctant to learn from India’s experience as Indian data is doubtful.
- India does not get as much credit for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic.
- India is seen as a poor, third-world country.
- India is seen as untrustworthy and incapable of tackling the COVID-19 pandemic independently.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Answer is (A): Developed nations are reluctant to learn from India’s experience as Indian data is doubtful.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which statement does not hold up given how the passage frames global reactions to India's handling of the pandemic. Reading each option against that frame settles it.
- Developed nations are reluctant to learn from India's experience as Indian data is doubtful: this option pins the skepticism on a specific technical reason, that India's data cannot be trusted. That is a different claim from "India is underestimated because it is seen as poor and incapable", which is the pattern the other three options share. Since this one introduces a cause the passage does not build toward, it does not hold.
- India does not get as much credit for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic: this fits the passage's broader point, that India's pandemic response goes unrecognised internationally, so it is true.
- India is seen as a poor, third-world country: this names the stereotype the passage is built around, the lens through which India's efforts get dismissed. It is true.
- India is seen as untrustworthy and incapable of tackling the COVID-19 pandemic independently: this restates the same underestimation in direct terms and matches the passage. It is true.
Three of the four options describe one consistent idea: India's success gets discounted because of how the country is perceived, not because of any data problem. The first option breaks that pattern by blaming faulty data instead, so it is the statement that is not true.
So the correct answer is option (A), "Developed nations are reluctant to learn from India's experience as Indian data is doubtful."
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
According to the given passage, which of the following statements is true?
According to the given passage, which of the following statements is true?
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
- COVID-19 cases in India have reduced because of reduction in restrictions.
- COVID-19 cases in India have increased with reduction in restrictions.
- COVID-19 cases in India have reduced with increase in restrictions.
- COVID-19 cases in India have reduced despite the reduction in restrictions.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct Answer is (D): COVID-19 cases in India have reduced despite the reduction in restrictions.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which one of four statements about India's COVID-19 case trend actually matches the passage. Checking each against the "restrictions were eased" scenario already set up in the passage settles it.
- COVID-19 cases in India have reduced because of reduction in restrictions: fewer restrictions normally lead to more contact between people and more spread, not less, so cases falling because restrictions eased is not the natural outcome. This does not fit.
- COVID-19 cases in India have increased with reduction in restrictions: this is the outcome we would ordinarily expect once curbs are lifted, but the passage's point is that cases still went down, not up. This contradicts the trend being described.
- COVID-19 cases in India have reduced with increase in restrictions: this assumes restrictions went up, but the whole scenario is built around restrictions being eased, not tightened. This does not match the setup at all.
- COVID-19 cases in India have reduced despite the reduction in restrictions: this keeps both facts straight, restrictions were relaxed, and cases still fell. That is exactly the kind of unexpected outcome worth reporting, and it does not contradict anything the passage sets up.
Only the fourth option keeps the direction of restrictions (down) and the direction of cases (also down) consistent with each other while framing it as a notable, counter-intuitive outcome, which is why passages like this one get written in the first place.
So the correct answer is option (D), "COVID-19 cases in India have reduced despite the reduction in restrictions."
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions