Comprehension
‘So pick a bird,’ Iff commanded. ‘Any bird.’ This was puzzling. ‘The only bird around here is a wooden peacock,’ Haroun pointed out, reasonably enough. Iff gave a snort of disgust. ‘A person may choose what he cannot see,’ he said, as if explaining something very obvious to a very foolish individual. ‘A person may mention a bird’s name even if the creature is not present and correct: crow, quail, hummingbird, bulbul, mynah, parrot, kite. A person may even select a flying creature of his own invention, for example winged horse, flying turtle, airborne whale, space serpent or aeromouse. To give a thing a name, a label, a handle; to rescue it from anonymity, to pluck it out of the Place of Namelessness, in short to identify it — well, that’s a way of bringing the said thing into being. Or, in this case, the said bird or Imaginary Flying Organism.’
‘That may be true where you come from,’ Haroun argued. ‘But in these parts, stricter rules apply.’
‘In these parts,’ rejoined blue-bearded Iff, ‘I am having time wasted by someone who will not trust in what he can’t see. How much have you seen, eh? Africa, have you seen it? No? Then is it truly there? And submarines? Huh? Also, hailstones, baseballs, pagodas? Goldmines? Kangaroos, Mount Fujiyama, the North Pole? And the past, did it happen? And the future, will it come? Believe in your own eyes and you’ll get into a lot of trouble, hot water, a mess.’ With that, he plunged his hand into a pocket of his auberginey pajamas, and when he brought it forth again it was bunched into a fist. ‘So take a look, or I should say a gander, at the enclosed.’ He opened his hand, and Haroun’s eyes almost fell out of his head. Tiny birds were walking about on Iff’s palm; and pecking at it, and flapping their miniature wings to hover just above it. And as well as birds there were fabulous winged creatures out of legends: an Assyrian lion with the head of a bearded man and a pair of large hairy wings growing out of its flanks; and winged monkeys, flying saucers, tiny angels, levitating (and apparently air-breathing) fish. ‘What’s your pleasure, select, choose,’ Iff urged. And although it seemed obvious to Haroun that these magical creatures were so small that they couldn’t possibly have carried so much as a bitten-off fingernail, he decided not to argue and pointed at a tiny crested bird that was giving him a sidelong look through one highly intelligent eye.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Haroun and the Sea of Stories, by Salman Rushdie, Granta & Penguin, 1990.]
‘That may be true where you come from,’ Haroun argued. ‘But in these parts, stricter rules apply.’
‘In these parts,’ rejoined blue-bearded Iff, ‘I am having time wasted by someone who will not trust in what he can’t see. How much have you seen, eh? Africa, have you seen it? No? Then is it truly there? And submarines? Huh? Also, hailstones, baseballs, pagodas? Goldmines? Kangaroos, Mount Fujiyama, the North Pole? And the past, did it happen? And the future, will it come? Believe in your own eyes and you’ll get into a lot of trouble, hot water, a mess.’ With that, he plunged his hand into a pocket of his auberginey pajamas, and when he brought it forth again it was bunched into a fist. ‘So take a look, or I should say a gander, at the enclosed.’ He opened his hand, and Haroun’s eyes almost fell out of his head. Tiny birds were walking about on Iff’s palm; and pecking at it, and flapping their miniature wings to hover just above it. And as well as birds there were fabulous winged creatures out of legends: an Assyrian lion with the head of a bearded man and a pair of large hairy wings growing out of its flanks; and winged monkeys, flying saucers, tiny angels, levitating (and apparently air-breathing) fish. ‘What’s your pleasure, select, choose,’ Iff urged. And although it seemed obvious to Haroun that these magical creatures were so small that they couldn’t possibly have carried so much as a bitten-off fingernail, he decided not to argue and pointed at a tiny crested bird that was giving him a sidelong look through one highly intelligent eye.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Haroun and the Sea of Stories, by Salman Rushdie, Granta & Penguin, 1990.]
Question: 1
If Iff is right, which of the following statements is true?
If Iff is right, which of the following statements is true?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- You should only trust what you cannot see
- Naming something is the only way to make it unreal
- You should only trust what you can see
- Naming something is one way to make it real
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D):Naming something is one way to make it real
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which statement follows if Iff's argument is accepted as true. Let's check each option against what Iff actually says.
- You should only trust what you cannot see: Iff never says to trust only unseen things, he lists things like Africa, submarines, and hailstones that people trust exist despite not having personally seen them, to argue against the narrower rule of trusting only what is visible. He is not proposing the reverse rule either.
- Naming something is the only way to make it unreal: This is the opposite of Iff's point. He says giving something a name, a label, is a way of rescuing it from anonymity and bringing it into being, which is about making something real, not unreal.
- You should only trust what you can see: This is precisely the rule Iff is arguing against. He tells Haroun that believing only in what your own eyes can see will get you into trouble, since so many real things, Africa, submarines, the past, are never directly seen.
- Naming something is one way to make it real: Iff says directly that to identify a thing, to give it a name or a label, is a way of bringing that thing into being. This matches his argument exactly.
Iff's whole speech is built around the idea that naming and imagining something is itself a way of making it exist, and that limiting belief to only what the eye can see leads to trouble. That leaves naming as a path to reality, not the claim that only unseen things should be trusted or that sight alone should be trusted.
Therefore, the correct answer is naming something is one way to make it real.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Which of the following applies to Iff?
Which of the following applies to Iff?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- He speaks in contradictions
- He has a habit of speaking in synonyms
- He uses proverbs to express ideas
- He uses metaphors to describe things
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (B):He has a habit of speaking in synonyms
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which description fits Iff's manner of speaking in the passage. Let's test each option against his actual lines.
- He speaks in contradictions: Iff's speech is built around a consistent argument, that naming and imagining make things real, and that trusting only sight is a mistake. His points build on each other rather than contradicting one another, so this does not fit.
- He has a habit of speaking in synonyms: Iff repeatedly restates the same idea using two or three words that mean nearly the same thing, one right after another. He tells Haroun that trusting only your eyes will get you into 'a lot of trouble, hot water, a mess', three phrases for the same outcome in a row. He also says 'take a look, or I should say a gander', restating 'look' with its slang synonym. This habit of doubling and tripling up on near identical words runs through his speech.
- He uses proverbs to express ideas: Iff does not draw on traditional sayings or proverbs to make his point, his examples, Africa, submarines, hailstones, are his own list built for this argument, not borrowed sayings.
- He uses metaphors to describe things: While his overall argument has an imaginative quality, his specific lines are direct statements and lists of examples rather than metaphors standing in for something else.
Iff's most noticeable speech habit is stacking up near-synonymous words and phrases for the same idea, seen clearly in 'trouble, hot water, a mess' and in 'a look, or I should say a gander'. That pattern of repetition through synonyms is what marks his way of talking.
Therefore, the correct answer is he has a habit of speaking in synonyms.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following most accurately describes what the underlined sentence means in the context of the passage?
Which of the following most accurately describes what the underlined sentence means in the context of the passage?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see
- Accept everything you see uncritically
- Trusting your senses is a recipe for success
- Learn not to appreciate viewpoints other than your own
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A):Do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks for the meaning of the underlined sentence in context. Iff's speech builds toward a warning about limiting belief to only what can be physically seen, using a long list of real things, Africa, submarines, hailstones, baseballs, the North Pole, the past, the future, that people accept as real without having personally seen them. Let's check each option against that warning.
- Do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see: This matches Iff's point directly. He is telling Haroun that plenty of real things are never seen firsthand, and that limiting belief to only direct sight leaves out most of what is actually true.
- Accept everything you see uncritically: This reverses Iff's actual warning. His concern is with over-relying on sight as the only test of what is real, not with uncritically accepting whatever is seen.
- Trusting your senses is a recipe for success: Iff's message is closer to the opposite, he warns that trusting only your own eyes will get you into trouble, hot water, a mess, not that it leads to success.
- Learn not to appreciate viewpoints other than your own: Iff's whole argument is about opening up to things beyond direct personal experience, imagined creatures, unseen places, which is the opposite of narrowing one's viewpoint.
Iff's list of unseen but real things, and his warning about the trouble that comes from trusting only your own eyes, together point to a caution against limiting knowledge to what is directly visible.
Therefore, the correct answer is do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
All the words below are related in meaning, except:
All the words below are related in meaning, except:
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Levitate
- Fly
- Hover
- Gander
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D):Gander
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks which of the four words does not share a related meaning with the others. Let's check each word.
- Levitate: To rise or float in the air, seemingly without physical support. This describes a way of being airborne.
- Fly: To move through the air under one's own power or lift. This is the most general word for being airborne.
- Hover: To stay suspended in one place in the air, neither rising nor falling. This is also a way of being airborne, just without forward motion.
- Gander: This word has two common meanings, a look or glance, as in taking a gander at something, or an adult male goose. Neither meaning has anything to do with being airborne.
Levitate, fly, and hover all describe different ways of being suspended or moving through the air. Gander, in either of its usual senses, a glance or a male goose, has no connection to flight itself, which sets it apart from the group.
Therefore, the correct answer is Gander.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
What does ‘fabulous’ mean in the passage?
What does ‘fabulous’ mean in the passage?
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Very good
- Unbelievable
- Mythical
- Enormous
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C):Mythical
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The question asks what 'fabulous' means as used in the passage. The word appears describing the winged creatures on Iff's palm, an Assyrian lion with a bearded man's head, winged monkeys, flying saucers, tiny angels, and levitating fish, all described as coming 'out of legends'. Let's check each option against that context.
- Very good: This is the everyday, casual sense of 'fabulous', as in a fabulous party. But the passage is describing creatures out of legend, not praising how good something is, so this everyday sense does not fit the context.
- Unbelievable: This is close to the mark but describes a reaction, something hard to believe, rather than naming what kind of creatures these actually are. The passage is more specific than a general sense of disbelief.
- Mythical: The creatures are explicitly said to be 'out of legends', a lion with a man's head, winged monkeys, flying saucers, angels. Mythical means belonging to myth or legend, which matches this description precisely.
- Enormous: The creatures on Iff's palm are described as tiny, small enough that Haroun doubts they could carry even a fingernail. Enormous is the opposite of how they are described, so this does not fit at all.
The passage ties 'fabulous' directly to creatures said to come 'out of legends', which is the specific meaning of mythical, not the casual sense of very good, the vaguer sense of unbelievable, or the mismatched sense of enormous.
Therefore, the correct answer is Mythical.
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