Ques: With tourism developing fast, you'd expect greater understanding between the nations of the world. Not a bit of it! Superb systems of communication by air, sea and land make it possible for us to visit each other's countries at a reasonable cost. What was once the "grand tour", reserved for only the very rich, is now within everybody's grasp so that modern travelers enjoy a level of comfort. But what's the sense of this mass exchange of populations if the nations of the world keep ignoring each other? Many tourist organizations deliberately set out to protect their travelers from too much contact with the local population. The modern tourist leads a sheltered life, such as living at international hotels, eating food and sipping drink there. However, he stares at the natives from a distance. Guided tours to places of interest are carefully planned. The tourist is allowed to see only what the organizers want him to see and no more, and language also holds them back. So he is only too happy to be protected in this way.  The sad thing about this situation is that it leads to the continuance of national stereotypes. That is, we don't see the people of other nations as they really are, but as we have been brought up to believe they are. So when you set out on your travels, the only characteristics you notice are those which confirm your previous knowledge. You leave with the highly unoriginal and inaccurate impression that, say, "Latin peoples shout a lot". You only have to make foreign friends to understand how absurd and harmful national stereotypes are. But how can you make foreign friends when the tourist trade does its best to prevent you? Which of the following can best describe the "grand tour" now? A) At a reasonable cost. B) It is still reserved for the very rich. C) Travelers enjoy the first-class comforts. D) It is accessible to everyone.44478344447834
Ans: D

Ques: Recently, another study has been carried out about who is the greatest American president. Sixty-five presidential historians took part in it and they judged the past forty-two American leaders based on ten qualities of leadership, which include public persuasion, crisis   leadership, the management of economy, moral leadership and international relations. The historians also looked at administrative   ability, relations with Congress, goal setting and pursuit   of equal justice for all. Finally, the experts considered performance based on the historical period in which the president lived.      The historians chose Abraham Lincoln as America's greatest president. He had also been named best president in a similar study in 2000. Abraham Lincoln was the only president in American history to lead the nation during the Civil War in the 1860s. He united the nation at last. And he took the first steps that destroyed the institution of slavery in America.      Edna Medford is a professor of history at Howard University in Washington, D.C. She was an adviser on this study and the earlier one. She says Abraham Lincoln is seen to represent the values that the nation most honors like truthfulness, moderation   and respect for human rights.      The historians named America's first president, George Washington, as second on the list of greatest presidents. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman are next in that order. John F. Kennedy, the country's first Roman Catholic president, is sixth on the list. Like Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy was murdered while in office.      Among recent presidents, Ronald Reagan was named the tenth best president. Bill Clinton was rated fifteenth. And the historians rated former president George W. Bush as number thirty-six. His father, George H.W. Bush, did much better. He was rated as number eighteen. Which of the following presidents did worst when he was in power according to the recent study? A) John F. Kennedy. B) George Washington C) Bill Clinton D) George W. Bush
Ans: D

Ques: Nuclear weapons were first developed in the United States during the Second World War to be used against Germany.However, by the time the first bombs were ready for use, the war with Germany had ended and, as a result, the decision was made to use the weapons against Japan instead. The real reasons why bombs were dropped on two heavily populated cities are not altogether clear.A number of people in 1944 and early 1945 argued that the use of nuclear weapons would be unnecessary, since American Intelligence was aware that some of the most powerful and influential people in Japan had already realised that the war was lost, and wanted to discuss a Japanese surrender  .It was also argued that, since Japan has few natural resources, a blockade   by the American navy would force it to surrender within a few Weeks, and the use of nuclear weapons would prove unnecessary.If a demonstration of force was required to end the war, a bomb could be dropped over an unpopulated area like a desert, in front of Japanese observers, or over an area of low population inside Japan, such as a forest.Choosing this course of action might decrease the loss of further lives on all sides, while the power of nuclear weapons would still be adequately demonstrated . All of these arguments were turned down, however, and the general agreement was that the quickest way to end the fighting would be to use nuclear weapons against the centres of population inside Japan.In fact, two of the more likely reasons why the decision was reached seem quite shocking to us now. According to Paragraph 2, a blockade would have been successful because A) Japan had to import most of its natural resources B) Japan would not be powerful enough to beat a blockade C) an attack would probably destroy Japanese resources within a few weeks D) the Americans could defeat Japan's navy since it was short of resources
Ans: A

Ques: Speaking two languages can actually help offset  some effects of aging on the brain, a new study has found. Researchers tested how long it took participants to switch from one cognitive  task to another, something that's known to take longer for older adults, said lead researcher, Brian Gold, a neuroscientist at the University of Kentucky. Gold's team compared task-switching speeds for younger and older adults, knowing they would find slower speeds in the older population because of previous studies. However, they found that older adults who spoke two languages were able to switch mental activities faster than those didn't . The study only looked at life-long bilinguals, defined in study as people who had spoken a second language daily since they were at least 10 years old. Gold and his team asked 30 people, either bilingual or monolingual  , to have a series of tests. They found that bilingual people were not only able to switch tasks faster, they had different brain activity than their monolingual peers. Kristina called bilingualism "a beautiful natural experiment", because people grow up speaking two languages,and studies have shown that they get certain cognitive benefits from switching between languages and determining which to respond with based on what's going on around them. Gold said he grew up in Montreal, where he spoke French at school and English at home, prompting relatives to question whether his French language immersion would somehow hinder his ability to learn English. "Until very recently, learning a second language in childhood was thought of as dangerous," he said. "Actually, it's beneficial. " What's the main idea of the passage? A) Researchers found that speaking two languages is important. B) Researchers found that bilingual people respond slowly. C) Researchers found that bilingual people can slow down the speed or aging on the brain and respond fast. D) Researchers found that bilingual people are great.
Ans:
C