Search Previous Year Questions

The correct answer is 'Option 4'.

Key Points       

• S1. The snowy albatross is among the largest birds that fly in the world.                               
• This statement makes a general assertion about the snowy albatross's impressive size among flying birds.
• S2. It has the widest wingspan among all birds, with lengths reaching up to 12 feet.                               
• This statement provides a specific, remarkable detail (its widest wingspan) that directly supports and adds significant weight to the claim made in S1. The extraordinary wingspan is a key reason why it is considered among the largest.
• When one statement provides strong, specific evidence that makes a previous general assertion more credible, substantial, and impactful, it "reinforces" that assertion. It doesn't just verify it, but strengthens its position.

Therefore, the correct answer is reinforces the first.

Additional Information   

• contradicts the first: This would mean S2 says the opposite of S1 (e.g., S2 states it's one of the smallest birds). This is clearly not the case.
• contrasts with the first: This would imply S2 highlights a striking difference from S1 (e.g., S1 says it's large, S2 says it's surprisingly delicate). This is not the relationship here.
• confirms the first: While S2 does support S1, "confirms" implies a more direct verification or proof. "Reinforces" is stronger because the widest wingspan is a contributing factor to its largeness, adding substantial evidence to the general claim rather than just repeating or formally verifying it. It makes the initial statement more convincing and complete.

The correct answer is 'Option 4'.

Key Points

• S1. A scientific theory is first proposed as a hypothesis.                               
• This statement describes the initial step in the scientific method, where an idea is put forward as a testable proposition.
• S2. After it is subjected to inquiry and is proven, it becomes a thesis.                               
• This statement describes the subsequent stage of the hypothesis mentioned in S1. It explains the process of rigorous testing ("inquiry") and validation ("is proven"), which leads to the hypothesis evolving into a more established form, referred to as a "thesis" (or often a scientific theory, depending on the context and level of establishment).
• S2 elaborates on what happens after the initial proposal in S1, detailing the progression of a scientific idea. Therefore, S2 logically continues and expands upon the idea presented in S1.

Therefore, the correct answer is extends the first.

Additional Information       

• proves the first: S2 doesn't prove S1 itself. S2 describes what happens to the hypothesis mentioned in S1.
• hypothesises the first: This would mean S2 is a guess or speculation about S1. However, S2 is a declarative statement explaining the next step in the process S1 describes, not hypothesizing about S1.
• challenges the burden of proof: This option implies questioning the necessity of proof, which is irrelevant to the relationship between the two statements.

The correct answer is 'Option 1'.

Key Points       

• S1. The manhunt for the perpetrator of the crime spread across the entire state.                               
• This statement describes a significant and widespread action taken by law enforcement in response to a crime.
• S2. There was deep public anger triggered by the enormity of the crime.                               
• This statement describes a strong public reaction (anger) to the nature of the crime ("enormity"). This anger would naturally precede and likely motivate such an extensive response as a state-wide manhunt.
• In a sequence of events related to a crime and its consequences, public outrage is often a driving force behind the intensity and scale of the investigation and pursuit of a criminal. Therefore, the public anger (S2) acts as a preceding condition or cause for the widespread manhunt (S1).

Therefore, the correct answer is is a precursor to the first.

Additional Information   

• follows the first: This would imply that the public anger arose after the manhunt spread, which is less logical in terms of cause and effect.
• contradicts the first: There is no conflict between S1 and S2; they describe related aspects of a single scenario.
• alters the premise of the first: S2 provides context and motivation for S1, but it does not change the fundamental premise that a manhunt for a perpetrator is underway.

The correct answer is 'Option 2'.

Key Points

• S1. Awareness about one’s own personality type is very important.
• This statement asserts the significance or value of self-awareness.
• S2. Self-awareness is a difficult goal for most people.
• This statement highlights a challenge or obstacle related to the concept introduced in S1. It doesn't deny the importance, but rather presents a contrasting aspect: the difficulty of achieving that which is deemed important.
• When two statements present distinct or seemingly opposing ideas that, when considered together, create a more complex or nuanced understanding of a subject, their relationship can be described as contrapuntal. The difficulty of self-awareness (S2) acts as a counterpoint to its stated importance (S1), adding a layer of challenge to an otherwise straightforward assertion of value.

Therefore, the correct answer is is contrapuntal vis-a-vis the first.

Additional Information

• contradicts the first: This would imply S2 states the opposite of S1 (e.g., "Awareness about one's personality type is unimportant"). This is not the case.
• confirms the first: This would mean S2 provides evidence or agreement with S1's assertion of importance. Instead, S2 introduces a new, contrasting aspect (difficulty).
• contrasts the first: While S2 does present a contrasting idea (difficulty vs. importance), "contrapuntal" offers a more precise description of this specific kind of relationship where two distinct themes are juxtaposed to create a richer, more complex interplay, rather than just simple opposition.

The correct answer is 'Option 3'.

Key Points

• S1. Liberalisation changed the contours of India’s economy.
• This statement describes a significant historical economic policy shift (liberalisation) and its fundamental impact on the structure and nature of India's economy.
• S2. India is today poised to become one of the top economies of the world.
• This statement describes the current and future positive status of India's economy. It implies a direct result or outcome of the changes mentioned in S1.
• The relationship between the two statements is one of cause and effect or a strong developmental connection. The changes brought about by liberalisation (S1) are presented as the underlying reason or condition that has led to India's current promising economic position (S2). Thus, S2 is a direct outcome or is strongly associated with the effects of S1.

Therefore, the correct answer is correlates to the first.

Additional Information

• contradicts the first: This would mean S2 states something opposite to S1 (e.g., that India's economy worsened due to liberalization). This is clearly not the case.
• contrasts with the first: This would imply S2 highlights a striking difference or opposition. Instead, S2 presents a positive consequence that logically follows from S1.
• coincides with the first: "Coincides with" means to occur at the same time. Liberalisation is a past event, while India being poised to become a top economy is a present and future outlook, so they do not coincide temporally. "Coincide" also doesn't capture the causal link effectively.

The correct answer is 'Option 1'.

Key Points

• S1. The final outcome can never be predicted incontrovertibly.
• This statement asserts that it's impossible to predict outcomes with absolute certainty or without dispute.
• S2. All outcomes are based on variables that cannot always be fully understood.
• This statement provides the fundamental reason or justification for why S1 is true. If outcomes depend on variables that are not always fully understood, then it logically follows that these outcomes cannot be predicted with absolute certainty.
• S2 directly and completely explains and supports the assertion made in S1. The inability to fully comprehend all variables (S2) is the complete and sufficient basis for the unpredictability (S1). Therefore, S2 provides full reinforcement for S1.

Therefore, the correct answer is fully reinforces the first.

Additional Information

• reinforces the first to an extent: This would imply partial support, but the reason given in S2 is a complete and direct explanation for S1, not just partial.
• definitely follows the first: This implies a consequence or temporal sequence. S2 is not a consequence of S1; rather, S1 is a consequence of S2. S2 explains why S1 is true.
• definitely does not follow the first: This is incorrect as there is a clear and strong logical connection between the two statements.

The correct answer is 'Option 2'.

Key Points

• S1. Mastery over any art form requires years of dedication and perseverance.
• This statement establishes a general principle: achieving mastery demands significant, sustained effort over a long period.
• S2. It takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in a field.
• This statement provides a specific, quantifiable benchmark often cited as a measure of the time and effort required to achieve expertise. The "10,000-hour rule" is a popular concept that attempts to quantify the "years of dedication and perseverance" mentioned in S1.
• S2 is a concrete illustration or a proposed metric for the general concept presented in S1. The idea of "years of dedication and perseverance" is directly and strongly aligned with the notion of putting in "10,000 hours of practice." There is no conflict or partial agreement; they describe the same underlying requirement from different perspectives (general versus specific quantification).

Therefore, the correct answer is is fully consistent with the first.

Additional Information

• is not consistent with the first: This is incorrect as both statements point towards the same fundamental requirement of extensive effort and time for mastery.
• is marginally consistent with the first: This suggests only a weak or slight agreement. However, the connection is strong and direct, making them fully consistent.
• is the only possible explanation for the first: This is too strong a claim. While 10,000 hours is a widely discussed benchmark, the concept of "years of dedication and perseverance" could be explained by other factors (e.g., quality of practice, talent, mentorship) or simply described without a specific hour count. S2 is one prominent explanation, not the only one.

The correct answer is 'Option 2'.

Key Points

• S1. The beauty of India’s democracy rests in the greatness of its Constitution.
• This statement establishes a claim: the greatness of the Constitution is the foundation of India's democracy's beauty.
• S2. The Constitution of India upholds the collective values of the country’s civilizational ethos.
• This statement explains why the Constitution possesses this "greatness" mentioned in S1. It provides a specific characteristic (upholding civilizational values) that contributes to its greatness and, by extension, the beauty of the democracy it supports.
• Essentially, S2 gives a reason for the positive assertion (the "greatness") made about the Constitution in S1.

Therefore, the correct answer is provides a reason for the assertion regarding the Constitution in the first.

Additional Information

• connects with the mention of Indian democracy in the first: While true, this option is too general. S2 has a more direct and specific relationship to the reason for the beauty (the Constitution's greatness) rather than just a general connection to democracy.
• contradicts the assertion about democracy in the first: S2 does not dispute or negate S1; it builds upon it by explaining a part of it.
• has no connection with the first: This is clearly incorrect as both statements are directly related to India's Constitution and its role in its democracy.

The correct answer is 'Option 4'.

Key Points

• S1. Roseate is an adjective for the rose flower.
• This statement provides a linguistic fact about a word ("roseate") derived from the rose.
• S2. The rose is a powerful poetic symbol in many languages.
• This statement provides a cultural/symbolic fact about the rose itself.
• The two statements discuss different aspects of the "rose" (one linguistic, one symbolic). S2 does not explain, expand upon, or contradict the specific linguistic detail in S1. Instead, it presents an additional, distinct, but equally true characteristic of the rose. In this context, "coincides with" implies that S2 is another true fact that exists alongside and is consistent with the truth of S1, both pertaining to the subject of the rose. They are separate facts that are simultaneously true about the same entity.

Therefore, the correct answer is coincides with the first.

Additional Information

• expands the first: S2 does not give more detail about "roseate" as an adjective. It introduces a new topic about the rose's symbolic meaning.
• explicates the first: S2 does not analyze or explain the concept of "roseate" being an adjective. It presents a separate idea.
• contrasts the first: There is no opposition or contradiction between S1 and S2. Both statements are factual and can coexist.

The correct answer is 'Option 3'.

Key Points

• S1. The early bird gets the worm.
• This is a proverb, which is a metaphorical statement implying that those who are prompt and proactive in their efforts will achieve success or gain advantages. The underlying assumption is that being "early" or "expeditious" leads to positive outcomes.
• S2. To go about one’s tasks expeditiously is to achieve one’s goals.
• This statement directly and literally expresses the principle that promptness and efficiency in completing tasks lead to goal achievement.
• S2 takes the metaphorical concept presented in S1 and states its literal truth. By doing so, S2 strengthens the core idea or "assumption" embedded within the proverb of S1 – that quick and efficient action leads to success. It doesn't just restate it, but provides a more direct affirmation of the principle that S1 uses as a metaphor.

Therefore, the correct answer is reinforces the assumption of the first.

Additional Information

• makes assertions about the first: S2 is an assertion about the principle the proverb conveys, not an assertion directly about the proverb itself (e.g., not "S1 is a popular proverb").
• provides a metaphorical reassertion of the first: S2 is a literal statement, not a metaphorical one. Therefore, it cannot be a metaphorical reassertion.
• contrasts with the first: S2 clearly agrees with and explains the core message of S1, so there is no contrast.