SBI PO – SBI PO TEST-19

In the following passage there are blanks each of which has been numbered. These numbers are given below the passage and against each five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately.

The best argument about the need for the Supreme Court to (1) itself as heavily as it has done in matters of cricket by not only dismantling the existing structure of the (2) but also appointing a panel to run it was that the board wouldn't have reformed on its own. Indian cricket would have (3) if board officials weren't pushed out. Those who have followed the goings­on in the IPL, teeming with conflict of interest issues and crony capitalism, probably (4) with the court. However, it's an argument that doesn't sit well with critics who see in the apex court's moves elements of (5) overreach. <br><br> Couldn't the court have (6) a panel to amend the constitution of the BCCI to lay down (7) for its elections and laws on how to function, instead of entering the business of running it? That's the question, especially after the recent decision to appoint a four­member panel to (8) the administration of cricket in the near future. The composition of the panel seems unexceptionable: A former CAG, an eminent historian with affection for and erudition about cricket, a businessman who quit Wall Street to involve himself in public policy in India, and a cricketer with experience in administration. Vinod Rai, Ramachandra Guha, Vikram Limaye, and Diana Edulji cover all the bases. Yet the question is, still: How did the apex court arrive at these names? The selection (9) of a committee that aims to bring in transparency, professionalism, and structural reform in a sports organisation shouldn't have been so (10).

In the following passage there are blanks each of which has been numbered. These numbers are given below the passage and against each five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately.

The best argument about the need for the Supreme Court to (1) itself as heavily as it has done in matters of cricket by not only dismantling the existing structure of the (2) but also appointing a panel to run it was that the board wouldn't have reformed on its own. Indian cricket would have (3) if board officials weren't pushed out. Those who have followed the goings­on in the IPL, teeming with conflict of interest issues and crony capitalism, probably (4) with the court. However, it's an argument that doesn't sit well with critics who see in the apex court's moves elements of (5) overreach. <br><br> Couldn't the court have (6) a panel to amend the constitution of the BCCI to lay down (7) for its elections and laws on how to function, instead of entering the business of running it? That's the question, especially after the recent decision to appoint a four­member panel to (8) the administration of cricket in the near future. The composition of the panel seems unexceptionable: A former CAG, an eminent historian with affection for and erudition about cricket, a businessman who quit Wall Street to involve himself in public policy in India, and a cricketer with experience in administration. Vinod Rai, Ramachandra Guha, Vikram Limaye, and Diana Edulji cover all the bases. Yet the question is, still: How did the apex court arrive at these names? The selection (9) of a committee that aims to bring in transparency, professionalism, and structural reform in a sports organisation shouldn't have been so (10).

In the following passage there are blanks each of which has been numbered. These numbers are given below the passage and against each five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately.

The best argument about the need for the Supreme Court to (1) itself as heavily as it has done in matters of cricket by not only dismantling the existing structure of the (2) but also appointing a panel to run it was that the board wouldn't have reformed on its own. Indian cricket would have (3) if board officials weren't pushed out. Those who have followed the goings­on in the IPL, teeming with conflict of interest issues and crony capitalism, probably (4) with the court. However, it's an argument that doesn't sit well with critics who see in the apex court's moves elements of (5) overreach. <br><br> Couldn't the court have (6) a panel to amend the constitution of the BCCI to lay down (7) for its elections and laws on how to function, instead of entering the business of running it? That's the question, especially after the recent decision to appoint a four­member panel to (8) the administration of cricket in the near future. The composition of the panel seems unexceptionable: A former CAG, an eminent historian with affection for and erudition about cricket, a businessman who quit Wall Street to involve himself in public policy in India, and a cricketer with experience in administration. Vinod Rai, Ramachandra Guha, Vikram Limaye, and Diana Edulji cover all the bases. Yet the question is, still: How did the apex court arrive at these names? The selection (9) of a committee that aims to bring in transparency, professionalism, and structural reform in a sports organisation shouldn't have been so (10).