Question

If Iff is right, which of the following statements is true?

• A. You should only trust what you cannot see
• B. Naming something is the only way to make it unreal
• C. You should only trust what you can see
• D. Naming something is one way to make it real
• A. He speaks in contradictions
• B. He has a habit of speaking in synonyms
• C. He uses proverbs to express ideas
• D. He uses metaphors to describe things
• A. Do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see
• B. Accept everything you see uncritically
• C. Trusting your senses is a recipe for success
• D. Learn not to appreciate viewpoints other than your own
• A. Levitate
• B. Fly
• C. Hover
• D. Gander
• A. Very good
• B. Unbelievable
• C. Mythical
• D. Enormous

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1 (Extract Iff’s core claim from the passage).
Iff says: “To give a thing a name, a label, a handle; to rescue it from anonymity, to pluck it out of the Place of Namelessness… that’s a way of bringing the said thing into being.” This means that naming/identifying something confers a kind of reality (existence) to it, at least conceptually or imaginatively. Step 2 (Distinguish Iff’s position from Haroun’s).
Haroun insists on “stricter rules” and is skeptical of what he can’t see; Iff rebukes that skepticism (“A person may choose what he cannot see”), pushing the idea that imagination + naming can make present what is absent. Step 3 (Evaluate each option carefully).
(A) “Only trust what you cannot see” — Iff encourages trust beyond the visible, but never says “only.” Over-strong and incorrect.
(B) Says naming makes something unreal; Iff argues the exact opposite.
(C) This is Haroun’s stance (“trust what you can see”), which Iff warns against.
(D) Matches Iff word-for-word: naming is one way to bring something into being (to make it real). Step 4 (Conclusion).
Therefore, (D) correctly captures Iff’s philosophy. \[ \boxed{\text{(D) Naming something is one way to make it real}} \]

Answer 2

The question asks which statement follows if Iff's own claims in the passage are taken as true, so the answer has to be built from Iff's exact words rather than from Haroun's opposing position.

1. You should only trust what you cannot see: Iff argues that unseen things like Africa, the past, and the future can still be real, but he never says the visible world should be distrusted. The word "only" makes this option stronger than anything Iff actually claims.
2. Naming something is the only way to make it unreal: Iff's whole speech is about naming bringing things "into being," which is the opposite of making something unreal. This option reverses his argument.
3. You should only trust what you can see: This is closer to Haroun's cautious position, the one Iff is actively arguing against by listing things nobody has personally seen, such as Africa or submarines.
4. Naming something is one way to make it real: Iff says directly that to name a thing is "to rescue it from anonymity... in short to identify it, well, that's a way of bringing the said thing into being." This is almost a restatement of Iff's own line.

Since Iff's central claim is that naming an unseen thing gives it a kind of existence, the option that echoes this claim most closely, without overstating it into an absolute rule, is the fourth one.

Therefore, the correct answer is naming something is one way to make it real.

Answer 3

Step 1 (Observe Iff’s language).
Iff doesn’t present textbook definitions; he paints images: “Place of Namelessness,” “pluck it out,” lists of imaginary flying organisms (winged horse, airborne whale, space serpent). These are vivid figurative devices used to explain an abstract idea (how naming animates existence). Step 2 (Eliminate look-alike options).
(A) Contradictions? No—the thread is consistent: trust beyond the visible, and naming confers presence.
(B) Synonyms? His lists (crow, quail, hummingbird…) are examples, not synonymy.
(C) Proverbs? Nothing like fixed folk sayings; the phrasing is original, not proverbial. Step 3 (Choose the best descriptor).
Metaphorical/figurative speech fits perfectly; hence (D). \[ \boxed{\text{(D) He uses metaphors to describe things}} \]

Answer 4

The question asks which description best fits how Iff speaks in the passage, so the focus should be on the style of his language rather than the content of his argument.

1. He speaks in contradictions: Iff's points build on each other consistently, unseen things can still be real, and naming gives them being, without one statement cancelling out another. There is no real contradiction in his reasoning.
2. He has a habit of speaking in synonyms: When Iff lists "crow, quail, hummingbird, bulbul, mynah, parrot, kite," these are different types of birds, not different words for the same bird, so this is a list of examples, not synonyms.
3. He uses proverbs to express ideas: A proverb is a fixed, traditional saying, such as "a stitch in time saves nine." Iff's lines like "the Place of Namelessness" are original phrases he invents for this conversation, not borrowed sayings.
4. He uses metaphors to describe things: Phrases like "Place of Namelessness," "pluck it out," and imagined creatures such as a "space serpent" or "aeromouse" are figurative images used to explain the abstract idea that naming brings things into existence.

Iff's language is built from invented, image-rich phrases rather than fixed sayings, word-lists of synonyms, or self-cancelling claims, which points squarely to figurative, metaphorical speech.

Therefore, the correct answer is he uses metaphors to describe things.

Answer 5

Step 1 (Read the build-up).
Iff challenges Haroun with unseen realities: “Africa, have you seen it? No? Then is it truly there? … the past, did it happen? and the future, will it come?” He shows that many things we must accept are not directly visible now. Step 2 (Interpret the warning).
“Believe in your own eyes” = relying only on current sense-perception. Trouble follows because that stance would absurdly deny faraway places, past events, future occurrences, and imagined possibilities. Step 3 (Option test).
(A) Precisely restates the lesson: don’t limit knowledge to the seen.
(B) “Accept everything you see” is not the point; the caution is against over-reliance on sight, not credulity about appearances.
(C) Opposite of the warning.
(D) About viewpoint intolerance—irrelevant here. Step 4 (Conclude).
Therefore (A) is the most accurate paraphrase. \[ \boxed{\text{(A) Do not restrict knowledge only to what you can see}} \]

Answer 6

The question asks for the meaning of the underlined sentence, "Believe in your own eyes and you'll get into a lot of trouble, hot water, a mess," in the context of the paragraph around it.

1. Do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see: Right before the underlined line, Iff lists things nobody present has personally seen, Africa, submarines, the past, the future, and asks whether they are "truly there" because of that. The warning that follows is aimed at someone who refuses to accept anything beyond direct sight, which is exactly what this option describes.
2. Accept everything you see uncritically: The sentence is a warning about relying too heavily on sight, not an instruction to accept whatever is seen without question. This option describes the opposite kind of advice.
3. Trusting your senses is a recipe for success: The sentence explicitly says trusting your own eyes leads to "trouble, hot water, a mess," so this option contradicts the sentence directly.
4. Learn not to appreciate viewpoints other than your own: The sentence is about sight versus imagination or unseen reality, not about tolerating other people's opinions, so this option addresses a different topic altogether.

Given the buildup of examples of unseen but real things right before the underlined line, the warning is clearly about not limiting belief to only what is directly visible.

Therefore, the correct answer is do not restrict your knowledge only to what you can physically see.

Answer 7

Step 1 (Group by semantic field).
(A) Levitate: to rise/float in the air (often mysteriously).
(B) Fly: to move through the air under power or by wings.
(C) Hover: to remain suspended in air at one place. All three denote airborne states/motion—same field.
Step 2 (Interpret “gander”).
In context, Iff says, “take a gander at the enclosed” — here gander = “a look/glance” (verb). It is not an airborne action; it belongs to the seeing/looking field (and as a noun it can mean a male goose). Step 3 (Odd-one-out).
Therefore (D) is the only word not tied to flight/air-suspension. \[ \boxed{\text{(D) Gander}} \]

Answer 8

The question asks which of the four words does not belong with the other three in meaning, based on how each word is actually used in the passage.

1. Levitate: In the passage, the "levitating (and apparently air-breathing) fish" are shown floating or rising in the air. This word belongs to the field of being airborne.
2. Fly: The passage is full of flying creatures, birds, winged monkeys, an aeromouse, all moving through the air under their own power. This word also belongs to the airborne field.
3. Hover: The birds on Iff's palm are described "flapping their miniature wings to hover just above it," meaning to stay suspended in one spot in the air. This is another airborne-motion word.
4. Gander: Iff says, "take a look, or I should say a gander, at the enclosed." Here "gander" is used to mean a look or a glance, not any kind of flight or airborne motion. As a noun outside this context, it can also mean a male goose, but neither sense has anything to do with being airborne.

Three of the four words describe some form of flight or floating in the air, while "gander" is used in the passage to mean a look or glance, which puts it in a completely different category of meaning.

Therefore, the correct answer is Gander.

Answer 9

Step 1 (Anchor to context).
The line is: “fabulous winged creatures out of legends: an Assyrian lion… winged monkeys, tiny angels, levitating fish.” This is a catalogue of legendary beings. Step 2 (Choose the sense of ‘fabulous’).
“Fabulous” has multiple senses. - Colloquial: “excellent/very good.” - Literal/etymological (from fable): “mythical/legendary.” Given the explicit mention of “out of legends,” the intended sense is mythical. Step 3 (Eliminate distractors).
(A) “very good” and (B) “unbelievable” are modern senses but do not fit the legend list; (D) “enormous” is unrelated. Step 4 (Conclude).
Hence (C) is the correct contextual meaning. \[ \boxed{\text{(C) Mythical}} \]

Answer 10

The question asks what "fabulous" means as it is used in the passage, which is a reminder that a word can carry more than one dictionary sense and the surrounding sentence decides which one applies here.

1. Very good: This is the everyday, casual sense of "fabulous," as in "that was a fabulous meal." The passage is not praising the creatures' quality, so this sense does not fit the sentence.
2. Unbelievable: This sense focuses on something being hard to believe. While the creatures are certainly strange, the passage specifically frames them as coming "out of legends," which points to a more precise meaning than general disbelief.
3. Mythical: The full line reads, "fabulous winged creatures out of legends: an Assyrian lion with the head of a bearded man... winged monkeys, flying saucers, tiny angels." "Out of legends" directly signals that these are creatures from myth and folklore, which is the older, literal sense of "fabulous," tracing back to the word "fable."
4. Enormous: Nothing in the passage describes the size of these creatures; in fact, they are tiny enough to sit and walk on Iff's palm, which rules out any size-based meaning.

Since the sentence explicitly ties these creatures to legends, the sense of "fabulous" being used here is the one connected to myth and fable, not the casual sense of "very good" or "unbelievable."

Therefore, the correct answer is Mythical.