This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 22 May 2025, the same 30 questions the app served that day, on the day's vocabulary and editorial. One mark for a right answer, minus 0.25 for a wrong one; the explanation opens as soon as you tap.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Exerting
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Tremendous
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Achieve
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Insists
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Expressed
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Aim
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Vowed
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Escalate
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To succeed in finishing something or reaching an aim, especially after a lot of work or effort.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To show something such as a feeling or an opinion by words or actions
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Point or direct (a weapon or camera) at a target.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Keep (something) from happening.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
All the winners ____ prizes tomorrow.
Explanation: Definition: The sentence is written in the passive voice, where the subject (winners) is receiving an action rather than performing it. In passive voice, the structure follows: Subject + will be + past participle. Correct Answer: <br><br> The correct option is Option A: will be given. Explanation: <br><br> - The phrase 'All the winners' refers to people receiving something (prizes). Since they are not performing the action but rather receiving it, a passive construction is required. <br><br> - The structure 'will be given' correctly follows the passive voice rule: will be + past participle (given). <br><br> - Therefore, the correct sentence is: All the winners will be given prizes tomorrow. Why Other Options Are Incorrect: <br> - Option B: will given → Incorrect because 'will' must be followed by the base form of the verb, but 'given' is a past participle. <br> - Option C: will be giving → Incorrect because it suggests that the winners are performing the action of giving, which does not fit the meaning of the sentence. <br> - Option D: will have given → Incorrect because this is the future perfect tense, which implies that the winners would have already completed the act of giving by tomorrow. This does not match the intended meaning of the sentence. <br> Final Answer: Option A: will be given.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
America...... the powerful president.
Explanation: The correct answer is B: has<br> This question tests your understanding of subject-verb agreement. <br> Subject-verb agreement means that the verb in a sentence must agree in number (singular or plural) with its subject. The subject is the person, place, thing, or idea that the sentence is about. <br> In this sentence, the subject is 'America,' which is a singular proper noun (the name of a country). <br> The verb 'has' is the singular form of the verb 'to have.' Therefore, 'America has the powerful president' is grammatically correct because the singular subject 'America' is paired with the singular verb 'has.' <br> Let's look at why the other options are incorrect: <br> A: have is the plural form of the verb 'to have,' and it doesn't agree with the singular subject 'America.' <br> C: is is the singular form of the verb 'to be,' but it doesn't fit the meaning of the sentence. The sentence is about possession ('has'), not being ('is'). <br> D: does is the singular form of the auxiliary verb 'to do,' but it also doesn't fit the meaning of the sentence. We need a verb that indicates possession.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
Amir Khan ____ new movie next year.
Explanation: The correct answer is D: will release<br> This question tests your understanding of future tense in English. <br> Future Tense: Future tense refers to verb forms that express actions or states that will happen in the future. English has several ways to express the future, including 'will,' 'going to,' and the present continuous tense. <br> Let's examine each option: <br> A: is release: This is grammatically incorrect. 'Release' is a verb, and it needs a helping verb (auxiliary verb) to form a future tense. 'Is' is the present tense form of 'to be,' which doesn't correctly convey future action. The verb 'release' also requires the passive voice ('is released') because the subject 'new movie' is receiving the action. <br> B: will be release: This is also grammatically incorrect. Although 'will' correctly indicates the future tense, 'be release' is not a correct conjugation of the verb 'to release.' The passive voice requires the past participle ('released'), not the base form ('release'). The correct passive form would be 'will be released.' <br> C: going to release: This option is grammatically correct, but it implies a plan or intention. While Amir Khan *might* plan to release a movie, the sentence doesn't specifically state that. 'Will release' is a more general prediction of a future event. <br> D: will release: This is the best option. 'Will' clearly indicates future tense. The sentence uses the active voice, which is appropriate because Amir Khan is the one performing the action of releasing the movie. The sentence is simple, grammatically correct, and conveys the intended meaning clearly.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
The robbery was committed in the wee hours of the day.
Explanation: in the wee hours of the day: the early hours of a day.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
At Christmas, even the elderly fathers paint the town red.
Explanation: paint the town red: To go out into a city or town and have an enjoyable time.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
The speaker's observations on the subject were beside the mark.
Explanation: Beside the mark: Irrelevant.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
We need further (a)/ information before we can (b)/ accede to your request (c)/ No error (d)
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
Just between you (a)/ and I (b)/ these theories won't work (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: and me
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
If you would have gone (a)/ in to the hall (b)/ you would have met your friends (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: If you had gone
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: 'How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.' Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to 'systemic problems with how people get their information and how they've come to think in increasingly partisan terms'. <br><br> Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world'. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called 'alternative facts', so that such 'facts' are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media. <br><br> Kakutani's important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere - and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted - each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it. <br><br> A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier's Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: 'To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....' There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that 'social media is undermining truth', 'making what you say meaningless', 'making you unhappy', and 'making politics impossible'. <br><br> Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: 'When we're all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.' Anxiety is easy to whip up. It's like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a childabuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children's organs. <br><br> But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: 'You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.' <br><br> It's tough to delete one's accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back 'the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world'. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an 'introspective intensive' course in university, a 'quiet room' at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an 'unplugged' (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and 'screen-free zones' in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.
Which among the following is true regarding the opinion expressed in the passage about reading news stories from various online sources?
Explanation: Refer to, 'You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.' <br> It makes this clear that the opinion expressed in the passage recommends that news should not be read through personalized feeds of the social media but it should be read directly from the website of the publishing house of the newspaper. <br> This makes option C as the correct choice among the given options.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: 'How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.' Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to 'systemic problems with how people get their information and how they've come to think in increasingly partisan terms'. <br><br> Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world'. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called 'alternative facts', so that such 'facts' are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media. <br><br> Kakutani's important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere - and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted - each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it. <br><br> A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier's Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: 'To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....' There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that 'social media is undermining truth', 'making what you say meaningless', 'making you unhappy', and 'making politics impossible'. <br><br> Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: 'When we're all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.' Anxiety is easy to whip up. It's like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a childabuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children's organs. <br><br> But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: 'You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.' <br><br> It's tough to delete one's accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back 'the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world'. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an 'introspective intensive' course in university, a 'quiet room' at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an 'unplugged' (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and 'screen-free zones' in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.
Which among the following is not true according to the given passage? <br> I. The victory of Donald Trump in the US Presidential elections is mainly due to the social media engineering of facts. <br> II. It is necessary that the readers are alert whenever they are going through any news since using personal discretion is very important. <br> III. Leaving the social media is an example of depression and isolation from the society that is very much harmful.
Explanation: Statement I is true. Refer to,' For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper partisan perspective to the world'. <br> It clearly implies that the supporters of Donald Trump relied on selected literature to go through at the cost of ignorance to any other theory. <br> Statement II is not correct since nowhere in the passage it is referred that personal discretion should be exercised whenever you are going through any news item. Rather it talks about managing the sources and also staying away from the internet and virtual world. <br> Statement III is also not correct since the passage strongly agrees with the idea that social media should be abandoned so that you can remain sane and normal. <br> This makes option C the right choice among the given options.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: 'How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.' Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to 'systemic problems with how people get their information and how they've come to think in increasingly partisan terms'. <br><br> Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world'. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called 'alternative facts', so that such 'facts' are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media. <br><br> Kakutani's important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere - and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted - each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it. <br><br> A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier's Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: 'To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....' There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that 'social media is undermining truth', 'making what you say meaningless', 'making you unhappy', and 'making politics impossible'. <br><br> Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: 'When we're all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.' Anxiety is easy to whip up. It's like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a childabuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children's organs. <br><br> But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: 'You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.' <br><br> It's tough to delete one's accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back 'the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world'. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an 'introspective intensive' course in university, a 'quiet room' at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an 'unplugged' (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and 'screen-free zones' in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.
Which among the following has / have been suggested as possible solution(s) to tackle the internet addiction prevalent in human beings today? <br> I. The academic curriculum should be changed and courses focusing on introspection of oneself should be there in the course materials. <br> II. The employers should arrange for areas within the premises where employees can just recreate with each other without the help of any device or technology. <br> III. In the public space, the administration should make sure that there is no device working in a particular area.
Explanation: Refer to, 'He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an 'introspective intensive' course in university, a 'quiet room' at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an 'unplugged' (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and 'screen-free zones' in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.' <br> Now, among the given solutions, the ideas of space in the office for interaction among the employees and the course on personal introspection are there, as suggested in the passage. But it is not feasible to make a public space completely free from all kinds of devices but they can be made screen-free, as suggested in the passage. This eliminates statement III. <br> This makes option D the right choice among the given options.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: 'How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.' Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to 'systemic problems with how people get their information and how they've come to think in increasingly partisan terms'. <br><br> Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world'. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called 'alternative facts', so that such 'facts' are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media. <br><br> Kakutani's important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere - and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted - each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it. <br><br> A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier's Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: 'To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....' There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that 'social media is undermining truth', 'making what you say meaningless', 'making you unhappy', and 'making politics impossible'. <br><br> Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: 'When we're all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.' Anxiety is easy to whip up. It's like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a childabuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children's organs. <br><br> But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: 'You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.' <br><br> It's tough to delete one's accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back 'the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world'. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an 'introspective intensive' course in university, a 'quiet room' at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an 'unplugged' (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and 'screen-free zones' in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.
Which among the following perfectly describes the main objective of the book written by Michiko Kakutani as described in the passage?
Explanation: Refer to, 'Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: 'How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.' <br> Hence, it is clear that her book mainly focused on the political discourse of the modern times where logic and reason were endangered species. It is mainly about fact creation and circulation among people by various means to create popular opinion about something or somebody. <br> This makes option C the right choice among the given options.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: 'How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.' Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to 'systemic problems with how people get their information and how they've come to think in increasingly partisan terms'. <br><br> Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world'. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called 'alternative facts', so that such 'facts' are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media. <br><br> Kakutani's important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere - and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted - each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it. <br><br> A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier's Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: 'To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....' There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that 'social media is undermining truth', 'making what you say meaningless', 'making you unhappy', and 'making politics impossible'. <br><br> Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: 'When we're all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.' Anxiety is easy to whip up. It's like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a childabuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children's organs. <br><br> But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: 'You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.' <br><br> It's tough to delete one's accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back 'the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world'. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an 'introspective intensive' course in university, a 'quiet room' at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an 'unplugged' (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and 'screen-free zones' in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.
Which among the following is not a harmful effect of social media that has been highlighted in the passage?
Explanation: Refer to, 'Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else.' <br> Hence, Statement A is correct in the context of the passage. <br> Again, refer to, 'Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an 'insulated knowledge community', with 'social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world'. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called 'alternative facts', so that such 'facts' are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.' <br> This makes Statement B also true regarding the harmful effect of social media on the people and also the political discourse. <br> However, there is no reference to the effect of social media as stated in C, in the passage and therefore, it is not a harmful effect of social media as described in the passage<br> This makes option C the right choice among the given options.
One Prime for the website and the app, same login. Videos play in the app.
30 questions in 15 minutes, All India rank, streak and explanations. Free: play it here after logging in, or in the app.
Free. Mobile number + OTP, no password.
