A real previous year paper: tap an option to check it, the explanation opens with the answer. Log in (free) to attempt it as a timed test with a score.
Select the most appropriate synonym of the given word:
FELICITOUS
Explanation: Felicitous means well chosen, suitable, apt, or appropriate in a particular situation. Therefore, “Appropriate” is the closest synonym.
Select the most appropriate synonym of the given word:
DILATORY
Explanation: Dilatory means slow, delaying, or intended to cause delay. “Tardy” also means late or slow, so it is the most appropriate synonym.
Select the most appropriate antonym of the given word
Refulgent
Explanation: Refulgent means shining brightly or radiant. Its opposite is “Dull,” which means lacking brightness or shine.
Choose the correct meaning of idiom:
Hoist with one’s own petard
Explanation: The idiom “hoist with one’s own petard” means being harmed or defeated by one’s own plan, trick, or scheme.
Select the correct spelling of a word meaning
a person who avoids work or effort’.
Explanation: “Sluggard” is the correct spelling and it means a lazy person or someone who habitually avoids work or effort.
Which of these is the correct spelling of a theory centered on utility and outcomes?
Explanation: “Utilitarianism” is the correct spelling of the ethical theory that judges actions by their utility, outcomes, or the greatest good for the greatest number.
Choose the correct one-word substitution for:
A person who pretends to be what he is not’.
Explanation: An “impostor” is a person who pretends to be someone or something he is not, usually in order to deceive others.
Choose the correct one-word substitution for:
‘A government or state in which those in power exploit national resources and steal’.
Explanation: “Kleptocracy” refers to a government or state ruled by corrupt leaders who exploit national resources and steal public wealth.
Choose the correct semantic fit:
The intervention was seen as a ____ to escalating tensions.
Explanation: A “deterrent” is something that discourages or prevents an undesirable action. Here, the intervention was meant to prevent escalating tensions, so “deterrent” fits best.
Find the part of the sentence that contains an error:
She spoke (1)/ concise during the press briefing (2)/ to ensure the journalists (3)/ captured the key points accurately. (4)/
Explanation: The error is in part (2). The adjective “concise” should be replaced with the adverb “concisely” because it modifies the verb “spoke.”
Change the following from active to passive:
The agent could have sold the house.
Explanation: In passive voice, “could have sold” becomes “could have been sold.” Therefore, the correct passive form is “The house could have been sold by the agent.”
Find the part of the sentence that contains an error:
So intense was the resistance (1)/ that the proposal not only failed (2)/ but also faced with widespread criticism (3)/ across institutional stakeholders. (4)
Explanation: The error is in part (3). The phrase should be “faced widespread criticism” or “was faced with widespread criticism.” Since the sentence is active, “faced with” is incorrect here.
Select the sentence containing the homonym of the highlighted word:
The basilica was renowned for its acoustics and proportions.
Explanation: In the given sentence, “basilica” refers to a building. In option (c), it is used in a different sense related to a plant, so it functions as a homonym.
Convert the sentence provided below from its passive voice structure to an active voice structure:
New protocols are expected to have been implemented by the end of the fiscal year.
Explanation: The passive structure “are expected to have been implemented” is best converted into an active-style sentence by making “Authorities” the doer of the action.
Choose the most suitable option to replace the highlighted part of the sentence:
The baby was sleeping since two hours.
Explanation: “For” is used with a duration of time, while “since” is used with a specific starting point. Therefore, “for two hours” is the correct replacement.
The relationship between morality and legality is neither linear nor synonymous. Though often conflated in everyday discourse, they belong to distinct conceptual realms. Legality refers to conformity with codified rules enforced by the state, whereas morality is guided by principles of right and wrong, which are often subjective and culturally contingent. The divergence between what is legal and what is moral forms one of the most enduring dilemmas in jurisprudence and civil ethics. Laws, by their very nature, are prescriptive and institutionalized, grounded in the need for order, predictability, and enforceability. Yet, legal codes are ultimately constructed within specific historical, political, and social contexts, and thus may reflect prevailing power structures more than universal justice. For instance, colonial laws legalizing racial segregation or past statutes criminalizing homosexuality demonstrate how legality can institutionalize what many later recognize as moral failures. Conversely, acts of civil disobedience—illegal by definition—often draw moral legitimacy from a higher ethical calling. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March or Rosa Parks’ defiance on a segregated bus were technically unlawful, yet they served as moral catalysts for transformative legal reform. This underscores a vital point: legality does not always equate to justice, and at times, morality must challenge the law to realign it with evolving human values. However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous. In pluralistic societies, what constitutes “moral” varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy. Hence, modern democratic legal systems are designed to be procedurally neutral, relying on constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity. The tension between morality and legality is also palpable in emerging debates around technology, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established. Consider data privacy or artificial intelligence—practices that may be legal today but pose moral quandaries about consent, autonomy, and manipulation. Ultimately, an ideal legal system should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism. Instead, it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time. Citizens, too, bear a responsibility: to not only obey the law but to question it when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice.
What central idea does the passage emphasize about legality?
Explanation: The passage explains that legality is formed within historical, political, and social contexts and may reflect power structures rather than universal justice. Therefore, legality is contextually shaped and not always just.
The relationship between morality and legality is neither linear nor synonymous. Though often conflated in everyday discourse, they belong to distinct conceptual realms. Legality refers to conformity with codified rules enforced by the state, whereas morality is guided by principles of right and wrong, which are often subjective and culturally contingent. The divergence between what is legal and what is moral forms one of the most enduring dilemmas in jurisprudence and civil ethics. Laws, by their very nature, are prescriptive and institutionalized, grounded in the need for order, predictability, and enforceability. Yet, legal codes are ultimately constructed within specific historical, political, and social contexts, and thus may reflect prevailing power structures more than universal justice. For instance, colonial laws legalizing racial segregation or past statutes criminalizing homosexuality demonstrate how legality can institutionalize what many later recognize as moral failures. Conversely, acts of civil disobedience—illegal by definition—often draw moral legitimacy from a higher ethical calling. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March or Rosa Parks’ defiance on a segregated bus were technically unlawful, yet they served as moral catalysts for transformative legal reform. This underscores a vital point: legality does not always equate to justice, and at times, morality must challenge the law to realign it with evolving human values. However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous. In pluralistic societies, what constitutes “moral” varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy. Hence, modern democratic legal systems are designed to be procedurally neutral, relying on constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity. The tension between morality and legality is also palpable in emerging debates around technology, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established. Consider data privacy or artificial intelligence—practices that may be legal today but pose moral quandaries about consent, autonomy, and manipulation. Ultimately, an ideal legal system should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism. Instead, it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time. Citizens, too, bear a responsibility: to not only obey the law but to question it when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice.
Why does the author mention acts like Gandhi’s Salt March and Rosa Parks’ defiance?
Explanation: The passage mentions these acts to show that some technically unlawful acts can gain moral legitimacy and become catalysts for legal reform when existing laws are unjust.
The relationship between morality and legality is neither linear nor synonymous. Though often conflated in everyday discourse, they belong to distinct conceptual realms. Legality refers to conformity with codified rules enforced by the state, whereas morality is guided by principles of right and wrong, which are often subjective and culturally contingent. The divergence between what is legal and what is moral forms one of the most enduring dilemmas in jurisprudence and civil ethics. Laws, by their very nature, are prescriptive and institutionalized, grounded in the need for order, predictability, and enforceability. Yet, legal codes are ultimately constructed within specific historical, political, and social contexts, and thus may reflect prevailing power structures more than universal justice. For instance, colonial laws legalizing racial segregation or past statutes criminalizing homosexuality demonstrate how legality can institutionalize what many later recognize as moral failures. Conversely, acts of civil disobedience—illegal by definition—often draw moral legitimacy from a higher ethical calling. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March or Rosa Parks’ defiance on a segregated bus were technically unlawful, yet they served as moral catalysts for transformative legal reform. This underscores a vital point: legality does not always equate to justice, and at times, morality must challenge the law to realign it with evolving human values. However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous. In pluralistic societies, what constitutes “moral” varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy. Hence, modern democratic legal systems are designed to be procedurally neutral, relying on constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity. The tension between morality and legality is also palpable in emerging debates around technology, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established. Consider data privacy or artificial intelligence—practices that may be legal today but pose moral quandaries about consent, autonomy, and manipulation. Ultimately, an ideal legal system should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism. Instead, it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time. Citizens, too, bear a responsibility: to not only obey the law but to question it when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice.
According to the passage, what risk arises from equating morality with legality in pluralistic societies?
Explanation: The passage states that in pluralistic societies, moral views differ across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law enforces one moral worldview, it risks authoritarianism or theocracy.
The relationship between morality and legality is neither linear nor synonymous. Though often conflated in everyday discourse, they belong to distinct conceptual realms. Legality refers to conformity with codified rules enforced by the state, whereas morality is guided by principles of right and wrong, which are often subjective and culturally contingent. The divergence between what is legal and what is moral forms one of the most enduring dilemmas in jurisprudence and civil ethics. Laws, by their very nature, are prescriptive and institutionalized, grounded in the need for order, predictability, and enforceability. Yet, legal codes are ultimately constructed within specific historical, political, and social contexts, and thus may reflect prevailing power structures more than universal justice. For instance, colonial laws legalizing racial segregation or past statutes criminalizing homosexuality demonstrate how legality can institutionalize what many later recognize as moral failures. Conversely, acts of civil disobedience—illegal by definition—often draw moral legitimacy from a higher ethical calling. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March or Rosa Parks’ defiance on a segregated bus were technically unlawful, yet they served as moral catalysts for transformative legal reform. This underscores a vital point: legality does not always equate to justice, and at times, morality must challenge the law to realign it with evolving human values. However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous. In pluralistic societies, what constitutes “moral” varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy. Hence, modern democratic legal systems are designed to be procedurally neutral, relying on constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity. The tension between morality and legality is also palpable in emerging debates around technology, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established. Consider data privacy or artificial intelligence—practices that may be legal today but pose moral quandaries about consent, autonomy, and manipulation. Ultimately, an ideal legal system should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism. Instead, it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time. Citizens, too, bear a responsibility: to not only obey the law but to question it when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice.
What challenge does the passage highlight in the legal treatment of emerging technologies?
Explanation: The passage says that laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established.
The relationship between morality and legality is neither linear nor synonymous. Though often conflated in everyday discourse, they belong to distinct conceptual realms. Legality refers to conformity with codified rules enforced by the state, whereas morality is guided by principles of right and wrong, which are often subjective and culturally contingent. The divergence between what is legal and what is moral forms one of the most enduring dilemmas in jurisprudence and civil ethics. Laws, by their very nature, are prescriptive and institutionalized, grounded in the need for order, predictability, and enforceability. Yet, legal codes are ultimately constructed within specific historical, political, and social contexts, and thus may reflect prevailing power structures more than universal justice. For instance, colonial laws legalizing racial segregation or past statutes criminalizing homosexuality demonstrate how legality can institutionalize what many later recognize as moral failures. Conversely, acts of civil disobedience—illegal by definition—often draw moral legitimacy from a higher ethical calling. Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March or Rosa Parks’ defiance on a segregated bus were technically unlawful, yet they served as moral catalysts for transformative legal reform. This underscores a vital point: legality does not always equate to justice, and at times, morality must challenge the law to realign it with evolving human values. However, conflating morality with legality can be equally dangerous. In pluralistic societies, what constitutes “moral” varies widely across cultures, religions, and ideologies. If law were to enforce a singular moral worldview, it would risk descending into authoritarianism or theocracy. Hence, modern democratic legal systems are designed to be procedurally neutral, relying on constitutional frameworks that protect individual rights while accommodating moral diversity. The tension between morality and legality is also palpable in emerging debates around technology, bioethics, and freedom of expression. Laws often lag behind technological advances, creating grey zones where ethical concerns arise before legal clarity is established. Consider data privacy or artificial intelligence—practices that may be legal today but pose moral quandaries about consent, autonomy, and manipulation. Ultimately, an ideal legal system should neither operate in moral vacuum nor serve as a mere extension of moral absolutism. Instead, it must strike a delicate balance—upholding constitutional values while remaining responsive to the ethical pulse of the time. Citizens, too, bear a responsibility: to not only obey the law but to question it when it stagnates or strays from principles of justice.
What is the author’s ultimate recommendation regarding the interplay of law and morality?
Explanation: The author concludes that an ideal legal system should neither ignore morality nor become moral absolutism. It should uphold constitutional values while remaining responsive to ethical concerns.
A sentence is provided in direct speech. From the four given options, choose the one that most accurately conveys the sentence in its corresponding indirect speech.
He said, “The sun rises in the east.”
Explanation: Universal truths do not change tense in indirect speech. Since “The sun rises in the east” is a universal truth, it remains “the sun rises in the east.”
A sentence is provided in direct speech. From the four given options, choose the one that most accurately conveys the sentence in its corresponding indirect speech.
She said, “Why didn’t you tell me the truth earlier?”
Explanation: In indirect speech, the question form changes into statement order. “Didn’t tell” changes to “hadn’t told,” and “said” becomes “asked.”
A sentence is provided in indirect speech. From the four given options, choose the one that most accurately conveys the sentence in its corresponding direct speech.
The analyst said that were the policies amended earlier, the crisis could have been avoided.
Explanation: The structure “were the policies amended earlier” expresses an inverted conditional. Its correct direct form is “Had the policies been amended earlier, the crisis could have been avoided.”
Rearrange the following sentences to form a coherent paragraph:
1. This process, a crucial part of the water cycle, ensures that freshwater resources are replenished and distributed globally. 2. The sun’s energy drives the evaporation of water from oceans, lakes, and rivers. 3. When the moist air cools, it condenses to form clouds, which then release the water back to the Earth as precipitation. 4. The resulting water vapor then rises into the atmosphere, carried by air currents.
Explanation: The sequence begins with evaporation caused by the sun’s energy, followed by water vapor rising, then cooling and condensation into clouds, and finally a concluding statement about the water cycle.
Rearrange the following sentences in correct order to make a logical passage.
1. This requires strong leadership and teamwork. 2. Organizational change is often met with resistance. 3. Effective communication strategies are essential for a smooth transition. 4. It is a necessary process for growth and adaptation.
Explanation: The passage should begin by introducing organizational change as necessary for growth and adaptation. It then explains that such change faces resistance, requires leadership and teamwork, and needs communication strategies for a smooth transition.
One Prime for the website and the app, same login. Videos play in the app.
Free. Mobile number + OTP, no password.
