“20-20” English Question | Crack SBI Clerk 2018 Day-41

Directions: (Q 1-5): Given below are the sentences, which contain four parts each. There is error in any one part and the other three parts are correct. Choose the set of correct parts from the given options. If there is no error in any part, choose the option none of these.

He is one (A)/ of the best brother (B) / that has ever (C) / lived in this planet.

Directions: (Q 1-5): Given below are the sentences, which contain four parts each. There is error in any one part and the other three parts are correct. Choose the set of correct parts from the given options. If there is no error in any part, choose the option none of these.

I would rather but (A)/ a Mahindra Scorpio but not (B)/ a swift dzire because (C)/ of the engineering aspects taking into consideration (D)

Directions: (Q 1-5): Given below are the sentences, which contain four parts each. There is error in any one part and the other three parts are correct. Choose the set of correct parts from the given options. If there is no error in any part, choose the option none of these.

If you study for (A) / 12 hours a day (B)/ then you can expect (C)/ grabbing a seat in government college (D)

Directions: (Q 1-5): Given below are the sentences, which contain four parts each. There is error in any one part and the other three parts are correct. Choose the set of correct parts from the given options. If there is no error in any part, choose the option none of these.

He said that (A) / he will win the (B)/ race at ease (C) / defeating Lewis Hamilton (D)

Directions: (Q 1-5): Given below are the sentences, which contain four parts each. There is error in any one part and the other three parts are correct. Choose the set of correct parts from the given options. If there is no error in any part, choose the option none of these.

Sixty percent of rural population have (A)/ never seen a smartphone (B)/ but twenty percent is unaware of (C)/ about the harm of open defacation (D)

Directions: (Q 6-10): Study the following vocabularies carefully. In the given options one pair will be either synonym or Antonym. Choose the correct option as your answer for the given word.

Beacon

(A) Purge (B) assist (C) artifice (D) armistice (E) wile.

Directions: (Q 6-10): Study the following vocabularies carefully. In the given options one pair will be either synonym or Antonym. Choose the correct option as your answer for the given word.

Avow

(A) conceal (B) adroit (C) asleep (D) bury (E) paradox

Directions: (Q 6-10): Study the following vocabularies carefully. In the given options one pair will be either synonym or Antonym. Choose the correct option as your answer for the given word.

Ameliorate

(A) debase (B) poor (C) abash (D) contaminate (E) feud

Directions: (Q 6-10): Study the following vocabularies carefully. In the given options one pair will be either synonym or Antonym. Choose the correct option as your answer for the given word.

Eulogy

(A) Leave (B) bore (C) censure (D) rebuke (E) ephemeral.

Directions: (Q 6-10): Study the following vocabularies carefully. In the given options one pair will be either synonym or Antonym. Choose the correct option as your answer for the given word.

Inimical

(A) Amicable (B) vital (C) Favourable (D) educe (E) Iniquitous.

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

What is true according to the author?

1. It is very tough for India to get a seat at the nuclear high table.
2. After becoming member of Nuclear Suppliers Group, it will be a smooth road for India.
3. Mostly audiences in Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy conference were proved wrong in 2017.

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

What is the view of Angela Kane regarding India?

1. Angela Kane thinks India have a higher chance to get a seat at the nuclear high table.
2. Angela Kane thinks that India should not be the members of NSG because India does not follow standards.
3. Angela Kane thinks that after India become member of NSG it will be difficult for other nuclear country.

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

What is true regarding the passage?

1. India blamed China for the hurdle to its bid.
2. Mostly country including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland were in support of India for getting NSG membership.
3. Countries have the issue of that India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty.

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

How U.S. is helping in India for getting membership of NSG?

1. S.A. talked to some countries which are opposing the membership of India in NSG.
2. S.A. voted in support of India for membership of NSG.
3. U.S.A. talked to China for supporting India for the membership of NSG.

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

What is true regarding the passage?

1. Public opposition in China increased for India.
2. Italy said that if India leave its marine than It will support in NSG membership.
3. According to Laura Kennedy if India were allowed Pakistan to come in then China will definitely support India.

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

Naysayers

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

uphill task

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

Tangle

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning of the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

Rife

Directions (Q. 11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

At the Carnegie Endowment International Nuclear Policy Conference in 2015, a polling question asked to the hall full of global diplomats and foreign policy experts was: “Is there a likelihood of more than 50% that by March 24, 2017, India will become a participant in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?” Only one panellist and 37% of the audience responded positively. Three panellists and 67% of the audience were naysayers, and they were proved right. A similar question asked to some 800 delegates recently at a subsequent chapter of the Carnegie conference in Washington DC gave way to a fragmented response. An average of 25% were hopeful of a 50% chance of New Delhi making it through by 2019. As India continues to push for a seat at the nuclear high table, it seems an uphill task, and the view from the Hill isn’t rosy either. The former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Angela Kane, believes that India stands a good 55% chance to make it but is opposed to India’s push. “I do not believe India should be a member of NSG because of criterion. In a meeting that I attended, the Chinese representative, a high-ranking ambassador, was very vocal, opposing the U.S. position on this.” Speculation is rife if over the next two years, either India or India and Pakistan or none could make it through the NSG. In the NSG plenary session in Seoul in June 2016, New Delhi blamed Beijing for the “Consensus Minus One” hurdle to its bid even though close to a dozen countries including Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Ireland expressed serious reservations over India not being signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It is now learnt from U.S. diplomatic sources that calls were generated from the White House as well as the State Department to some naysayers including New Zealand and Italy. Italy had wanted a way out on the diplomatic tangle around its two marines charged with the murder of Indian fishermen. They had sought trial in a third country as a possible option. New Delhi dismissed the proposals and Italy stuck to its opposition in the closed-door sessions. Since the Seoul summit, a committee under Rafael Mariano Grossi, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic and Permanent Representative to International Organizations in Vienna and Chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, was tasked with backdoor consultations for expansion of the elite club. According to him, “several formulations are on the table to deal with the central issue of relationship with the NPT”. “The jury is still out and we need to wait a little bit,” he says. Indian and Chinese interlocutors too have held rounds of discussions to resolve mutual issues. But with a public opposition unlike a quiet one in 2008, Beijing looks less relenting. Laura Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador and Board Member at the World Affairs Council, says, “Even if India were to allow Pakistan to come in, some have suggested China might still be averse because they see this as elevating India to almost ranks of the P5 or Security Council membership.”

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning of the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.

Plenary