HTET परीक्षा - Level 1 PRT - भाषा 2 - अंग्रेज़ी

Option 2 is correct because a rondel is defined as a 13-line verse form consisting of two quatrains (four-line stanzas) followed by a quintet (five-line stanza). The defining characteristic of a rondel is this specific structure. Furthermore, certain lines are repeated as refrains, adding to the form's unique identity, but the core structure is undeniably two quatrains and a quintet.

Now, let's examine why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 1: An octave and a quintet: An octave is an eight-line stanza. A rondel does not begin with an eight-line stanza. Therefore, this option is incorrect.

• Option 3: Three tercets and a quatrain: Three tercets would total nine lines, and adding a quatrain would bring the total to 13 lines. While the total line count is correct, the structure is wrong. A rondel specifically requires two quatrains followed by a quintet, not three tercets and a quatrain.

• Option 4: Three quatrains and an end line: Three quatrains would total 12 lines. Adding an end line would bring the total to 13 lines. Again, while the total line count is correct, the structure is wrong. A rondel specifically requires two quatrains followed by a quintet, not three quatrains and a single line.

In his essay, 'The Argumentative Indian', Amartya Sen argues that in India there has been a long tradition of questioning the truth of ideas through discussion and dialogue. This is the core thesis of his work. Sen explores how India's history is replete with examples of intellectual debates, philosophical inquiries, and open discussions that have shaped its social, political, and religious landscape. He highlights the importance of this argumentative tradition in fostering tolerance, understanding, and progress. He draws upon historical texts, religious scriptures, and political movements to demonstrate the prevalence and significance of reasoned debate in Indian society.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 1: argues that loquaciousness is a new habit among Indians. This is incorrect because Sen's essay focuses on a long-standing tradition of argumentation, not a new habit. He argues that this tradition is deeply rooted in Indian history and culture.

• Option 2: says that Indians have always indulged in meaningless arguments. This is incorrect because Sen emphasizes the meaningful and productive nature of Indian arguments. He highlights how these debates have contributed to social and intellectual progress. He doesn't portray them as meaningless.

• Option 3: does not take into consideration gender, caste and voice in the essay. This is incorrect. While the essay's primary focus is on the broader argumentative tradition, Sen does address issues of gender, caste, and voice within the context of Indian society and how these factors influence participation in and access to these argumentative spaces. He acknowledges the inequalities that exist and how they impact the ability of different groups to engage in public discourse.

'The Life of Mahatma Gandhi' is written by Louis Fischer.

Here's why Option 3 (Louis Fischer) is the correct answer and why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 3: Louis Fischer (Correct) Louis Fischer was a renowned American journalist and author. He is best known for his biography of Mahatma Gandhi, titled "The Life of Mahatma Gandhi," published in 1951. This book is widely considered a definitive and comprehensive account of Gandhi's life, meticulously researched and providing deep insights into his philosophy, political strategies, and personal life. Fischer spent considerable time with Gandhi, allowing him to offer a firsthand perspective and a nuanced understanding of the Indian leader.

• Option 1: Tishani Doshi (Incorrect) Tishani Doshi is a contemporary Indian poet, journalist, and dancer. She is known for her poetry collections and novels, but she is not the author of "The Life of Mahatma Gandhi." Her works focus on different themes and subjects, unrelated to a comprehensive biography of Gandhi.

• Option 2: Anne Frank (Incorrect) Anne Frank was a young Jewish girl who kept a diary while hiding from the Nazis during World War II. Her diary, "The Diary of a Young Girl," is a powerful and poignant account of her experiences. She is not associated with writing a biography of Mahatma Gandhi. Her writings are focused on her personal experiences during the Holocaust.

• Option 4: Sri Aurobindo (Incorrect) Sri Aurobindo was an Indian philosopher, yogi, guru, poet, and nationalist. While he was a prominent figure in the Indian independence movement and wrote extensively on spiritual and philosophical topics, he is not known for writing a comprehensive biography of Mahatma Gandhi. His writings primarily focus on his own spiritual philosophy and vision.

The Nobel Prize in Literature 2018 was given to None of these because the Nobel Prize in Literature was not awarded in 2018.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 1: Bob Dylan: Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016, not 2018.

• Option 2: Alice Munro: Alice Munro won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2013, not 2018.

• Option 3: Doris Lessing: Doris Lessing won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2007, not 2018.

The Nobel Prize in Literature was postponed in 2018 due to a scandal within the Swedish Academy. Therefore, the correct answer is that no one received the prize in that year. The 2018 prize was awarded in 2019, along with the 2019 prize.

To compose or think up on the spur of the moment is to improvise.

Here's why:

• Improvise means to create or perform something spontaneously or without preparation. This aligns perfectly with the definition of composing or thinking up something "on the spur of the moment." It suggests a lack of pre-planning and a reliance on immediate inspiration.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Reflect: To reflect means to think deeply or carefully about something. This implies a deliberate and thoughtful process, which is the opposite of acting on the spur of the moment.
• Artful: Artful means clever or skillful, especially in a cunning or deceptive way. While improvisation can be skillful, "artful" doesn't capture the core meaning of spontaneous creation. It focuses more on the how (skillfully) rather than the when (on the spur of the moment).
• Brainwave: A brainwave is a sudden clever idea. While a brainwave might lead to improvisation, the act of having a brainwave is not the same as the act of composing or thinking up something on the spur of the moment. Improvisation is the execution of an idea, not just the idea itself.

The literary device present in the given lines is Anachronism.

Here's why:

• Why Anachronism (Option 2) is Correct: An anachronism is an error in chronology or timeline; specifically, something that is placed in the wrong time period. Mechanical clocks that strike the hour (like the one mentioned) did not exist in ancient Rome, the setting of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Their presence in the dialogue is therefore an anachronism, a detail inconsistent with the historical period. Shakespeare intentionally or unintentionally included this detail, making it an anachronistic element.

• Why the other options are incorrect:

  • Onomatopoeia (Option 1): Onomatopoeia is the formation of a word from a sound associated with what is named (e.g., sizzle, buzz). The given lines do not contain any words that imitate sounds.

  • Analogy (Option 3): An analogy is a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. The lines do not present a comparison between two different things to explain a concept.

  • Antithesis (Option 4): Antithesis is a figure of speech in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed by parallelism of words that are the opposites of each other. The lines do not present contrasting ideas in parallel structure.

The Text-book for class XII (Core Course) is titled :

Option 3: Flamingo

Explanation:

Option 3, Flamingo, is the correct answer because it is the name of one of the two core English textbooks prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for Class XII. Flamingo contains prose and poetry selections.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 1: Beehive: Beehive is the English textbook used in Class IX, not Class XII.

• Option 2: Hornbill: Hornbill is the English textbook used in Class XI, not Class XII.

• Option 4: First Flight: First Flight is the English textbook used in Class X, not Class XII.

Therefore, based on the CBSE curriculum for English textbooks, Flamingo is the only correct option for a Class XII (Core Course) textbook.

Option 4 is the correct answer because John Osborne is primarily known as a writer of social realism and anger plays, not absurd plays. His most famous work, Look Back in Anger, is a quintessential example of the "angry young men" movement in British theatre, focusing on the frustrations and disillusionment of working-class youth in post-war Britain. His plays typically deal with social issues, class conflict, and personal relationships in a realistic and often confrontational manner. While his plays may contain elements of disillusionment and existential angst, they do not employ the characteristic techniques of absurdism, such as illogical plots, nonsensical dialogue, and a rejection of traditional dramatic structure.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 1: Eugene Ionesco: Ionesco is a central figure in the Theatre of the Absurd. His plays, such as The Bald Soprano and Rhinoceros, are prime examples of the genre, characterized by illogical situations, repetitive and meaningless dialogue, and a sense of alienation and meaninglessness.

• Option 2: Jean Genet: Genet is another significant playwright associated with the Theatre of the Absurd. His plays, like The Maids and The Balcony, often explore themes of identity, power, and illusion through unconventional and often disturbing dramatic structures and characters. They frequently challenge conventional morality and social norms in an absurdist manner.

• Option 3: Edward Albee: Albee's work, particularly plays like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, often incorporates elements of the absurd, though he is not exclusively an absurdist playwright. His plays frequently feature dysfunctional relationships, dark humor, and a questioning of societal values, aligning with some aspects of the Theatre of the Absurd.

Mirabell and Millamant are indeed characters from Congreve's The Way of the World.

Here's why Option 1 is correct and the others are incorrect:

• Option 1: Congreve's The Way of the World - This is the correct answer. Mirabell and Millamant are the central characters in William Congreve's Restoration comedy, The Way of the World. Their witty dialogue, complex courtship, and the intricate plot surrounding their marriage contract are the core of the play. They are arguably the most famous and well-developed characters in the play.

• Option 2: Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice - This is incorrect. The main characters in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice include Shylock, Antonio, Portia, Bassanio, and Jessica. Mirabell and Millamant are not characters in this play.

• Option 3: Marlowe's The Jew of Malta - This is incorrect. Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta features characters such as Barabas, Abigail, Lodowick, and Mathias. Mirabell and Millamant are not present in this play.

• Option 4: Kyd's Spanish Tragedy - This is incorrect. Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy includes characters like Hieronimo, Bel-imperia, Horatio, and Lorenzo. Mirabell and Millamant are not characters in this play.

Here's a detailed explanation justifying why Option 1 is the correct answer and why the other options are incorrect, based solely on the provided passage:

Why Option 1 is Correct:

Option 1, "because a genius suffers the penalty of genius, and a talented person is full of cares and worries," is directly supported by the first sentence of the passage: "Unquestionably, a literary life is for the most part an unhappy life, because, if you have genius, you must suffer the penalty of genius; and, if you have only talent, there are so many cares and worries incidental to the circumstances of men of letters, as to make life exceedingly miserable." This sentence explicitly states that both genius and talent contribute to the unhappiness of a literary life, with genius facing a "penalty" and talent being burdened by "cares and worries." The rest of the passage elaborates on these cares and worries, such as the difficulty of gaining public attention and facing criticism.

Why Other Options are Incorrect:

• Option 2: because such a life is beset with loneliness. While the passage discusses the struggles of a writer, it doesn't explicitly mention loneliness as a primary reason for unhappiness. The focus is on the challenges related to the creative process, public reception, and criticism, not on social isolation.

• Option 3: because the monetary returns are frugal. The passage doesn't directly state that the primary reason for unhappiness is low income. While it mentions that publishers are "mere brokers" focused on profit and loss, this is presented as a challenge in getting published, not as the root cause of unhappiness in a literary life. The emphasis is on the artistic and emotional struggles, not financial ones.

• Option 4: because the readers are few and far between. The passage discusses the difficulty of "gaining the public ear," which implies a struggle to reach readers. However, it doesn't state that the number of readers is the primary cause of unhappiness. The focus is on the process of reaching readers and the potential for negative criticism, rather than the sheer lack of readership. The passage suggests that even with readers, the author faces challenges.

In conclusion, Option 1 is the only option that is directly and explicitly supported by the opening sentence of the passage, which serves as the thesis statement for the reasons behind the unhappiness of a literary life. The other options, while potentially related to the challenges of being a writer, are not presented as the primary reasons for unhappiness as defined in the passage's initial statement.

Here's a detailed explanation justifying why Option 2 is the correct answer and why the other options are incorrect, based on the provided passage:

Why Option 2 ("he has to run the 'gauntlet' of his critics") is Correct:

The passage explicitly states: "But supposing your book fairly launches, its perils are only beginning. You have to run the gauntlet of the critics." This sentence directly uses the phrase "run the gauntlet of the critics" to describe the ordeal awaiting a young author. The passage then elaborates on this by comparing it to a terrible ordeal, like passing down the files of Sioux or Comanche Indians. This comparison emphasizes the challenging and potentially painful experience a young author faces when subjected to critical review. Therefore, Option 2 accurately reflects the passage's description of the author's experience.

Why Option 1 ("the critics harass him") is Incorrect:

While the passage implies that critics can be harsh and cause suffering, the word "harass" suggests a persistent and deliberate form of torment. The passage doesn't explicitly use the word "harass," and while it describes the potential for negative criticism, it doesn't necessarily equate it to constant or intentional harassment. The "gauntlet" metaphor implies a single, albeit intense, trial rather than ongoing harassment.

Why Option 3 ("he has to save his scalp, as critics throw stones at him") is Incorrect:

This option is a literal interpretation of the "Sioux or Comanche Indians" metaphor. While the passage uses this imagery to convey the severity of the criticism, it's a figurative comparison, not a literal description of critics throwing stones. The phrase "save his scalp" is part of the metaphor, not a direct representation of what the author must do. The author doesn't literally have to protect himself from physical harm.

Why Option 4 ("the critics are sympathetic towards him") is Incorrect:

The entire passage focuses on the potential difficulties and negative experiences a young author faces with critics. The passage describes the critics as potentially savage and compares the experience to a terrible ordeal. There is absolutely no indication in the passage that critics are generally sympathetic towards young authors. In fact, the passage suggests the opposite.

Here's a detailed explanation justifying why Option 4 is the correct answer and why the other options are incorrect, based on the provided passage:

Why Option 4 ("he should take the criticism in the face and go his way unheeding") is the Correct Answer:

The passage explicitly states that an author should not publicly defend himself against criticism. It also mentions that a time comes when an author regards critics as comical and "goes his way unheeding." This directly supports Option 4. The phrase "take the criticism in the face" implies acknowledging the criticism exists, but "go his way unheeding" emphasizes the importance of not letting it derail the author's work or self-belief. The passage suggests that developing a thick skin and continuing to write despite criticism is the most sensible approach for an author's well-being and continued productivity. The author should acknowledge the criticism but not let it affect their work.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

• Option 1 ("he should defend himself"): The passage explicitly warns against this. It states, "...it is a cardinal principle in literature that the most unwise thing in the world for an author is to take public notice of criticism in the way of defending himself." This directly contradicts Option 1, making it incorrect.

• Option 2 ("he should change his way of writing"): While the passage acknowledges the sting of criticism, it doesn't suggest that an author should fundamentally alter their writing style based on it. The focus is on developing resilience and continuing to create despite negative feedback. Changing one's entire approach based on criticism could stifle creativity and lead to inauthentic work. The passage implies that an author should stay true to their vision.

• Option 3 ("he should suffer silently"): While the passage acknowledges that many authors do suffer silently, it doesn't present this as the ideal or recommended approach. Suffering silently can lead to abandoning the profession, as mentioned with the example of Keats. Option 4 offers a more proactive and resilient response, suggesting that an author should acknowledge the criticism but not let it consume them.

Here's a detailed explanation justifying why Option 3 (advice) is the correct answer and why the other options are incorrect, based on the provided passage:

Why Option 3 (Advice) is Correct:

The passage is structured as a series of warnings and insights directed towards aspiring writers. The author shares experiences and observations about the literary world, aiming to prepare young authors for the challenges they will face. Key indicators that the passage is offering advice include:

• Direct Address: The author frequently uses phrases like "Young writers," "You can never convince a young author," and "When you are a little older," directly addressing the intended audience and offering guidance.
• Warnings about Expectations: The passage cautions against unrealistic expectations of immediate success and recognition, advising young writers that the publishing industry is driven by profit and loss.
• Strategies for Coping: The author provides advice on how to deal with criticism, suggesting that authors should eventually learn to disregard it and not publicly defend themselves.
• Lessons from Experience: The passage draws on the author's apparent experience in the literary world to offer practical insights and prevent disillusionment. The mention of Keats serves as a cautionary tale.
• Overall Tone: The tone is instructive and cautionary, aiming to prepare and guide young writers through the difficulties of a literary career.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

• Option 1 (Biography): A biography is an account of someone's life. The passage does not focus on the life story of a specific individual. While Keats is mentioned, it's as an example to illustrate a point about criticism, not as the subject of a biographical narrative. The passage is about the general experience of writers, not a particular person's life.

• Option 2 (Anecdote): An anecdote is a short, amusing, or interesting story about a real incident or person. While the passage contains elements of storytelling and personal reflection, it's not primarily a self-contained, humorous, or engaging story. The passage's primary purpose is to offer guidance and insights, not to entertain with a brief narrative. The mention of Keats could be considered anecdotal, but the passage as a whole is not structured as a single anecdote.

• Option 4 (Soliloquy): A soliloquy is a speech given by a character alone on stage, revealing their thoughts and feelings. The passage is not a dramatic monologue delivered by a single character. It's a direct address to the reader, offering observations and advice about the literary profession. There's no sense of a character speaking their inner thoughts aloud in a theatrical setting. The author is clearly addressing an audience of aspiring writers.

In conclusion, the passage's structure, tone, and content strongly support the interpretation that it is offering advice to young writers, making Option 3 the most accurate choice. The other options do not align with the passage's primary purpose and characteristics.

In Vikram Seth's extract from Heaven Lake, he recounts his visit to Kathmandu and specifically mentions visiting two sacred places: Pashupatinath and Baudhnath.

• Why Option 2 (Pashupatinath and Baudhnath) is correct: The text explicitly describes Seth's experiences and observations at both Pashupatinath, a significant Hindu temple, and Baudhnath, a large Buddhist stupa. He details the atmosphere, rituals, and the people he encountered at these locations, making them central to his narrative of Kathmandu.

• Why Option 1 (Sarnath and Sanchi) is incorrect: Sarnath and Sanchi are important Buddhist sites, but they are located in India, not Kathmandu, Nepal. Vikram Seth's extract focuses on his experiences in Kathmandu.

• Why Option 3 (Swayambhunath and Kopan) is incorrect: While Swayambhunath is a significant Buddhist stupa in Kathmandu and a possible contender, Kopan Monastery, while also in the Kathmandu Valley, is not as prominently featured in the extract from Heaven Lake as Baudhnath is. The text emphasizes Pashupatinath and Baudhnath.

• Why Option 4 (Nagarkot and Narayanhiti) is incorrect: Nagarkot is known for its views of the Himalayas, and Narayanhiti was the former royal palace. While they are places of interest in Nepal, they are not the two sacred places that Vikram Seth specifically recounts visiting in his extract from Heaven Lake. The extract focuses on religious sites, and neither Nagarkot nor Narayanhiti fit that description as prominently as Pashupatinath and Baudhnath.

Apartheid is a political system that separates people according to their race. This system was most notably implemented in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. It involved the systematic segregation and discrimination against non-white citizens, denying them basic rights and opportunities based solely on their racial classification. Laws were enacted to enforce residential segregation, limit access to education and employment, and restrict political participation. Therefore, Option 1 is the correct answer because it directly describes a system of racial separation.

Now, let's explain why the other options are incorrect:

• Anarchy: Anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority. It is a system where there is no governing power, not a system specifically based on racial separation.

• Democracy: Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. It is based on principles of equality and participation, the opposite of racial segregation.

• Plutocracy: Plutocracy is a system of government by the wealthy. While wealth disparities can certainly exacerbate racial inequalities, plutocracy itself is not defined by racial separation as its primary characteristic.

The underlined word "nonchalantly" is an Adverb because it modifies the verb "answered."

Here's why:

• Adverb: Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. In this sentence, "nonchalantly" describes how Sameer answered the questions. It adds information about the manner of his answering. Therefore, it functions as an adverb.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Adjective: Adjectives modify nouns or pronouns. "Nonchalantly" does not describe a noun or pronoun in the sentence. It describes the action of answering.
• Verb: Verbs are action words or words that describe a state of being. "Nonchalantly" does not describe an action or state of being; it describes how an action is performed.
• Conjunction: Conjunctions connect words, phrases, or clauses. "Nonchalantly" does not connect any parts of the sentence. It modifies the verb "answered."

The 'Shokalskiy' mentioned in Tishani Doshi's 'Journey to the End of the Earth' is indeed a research ship for Arctic and Antarctic expeditions. Here's why this is the correct answer and why the other options are incorrect:

• Why Option 3 is Correct: The 'Akademik Shokalskiy' is a real-world Russian research vessel. It's specifically designed and used for scientific expeditions, particularly in polar regions like the Arctic and Antarctic. These expeditions often involve studying climate change, marine life, and other environmental factors. The text 'Journey to the End of the Earth' describes the narrator's experience traveling on this ship to Antarctica for such a research-oriented trip. The entire journey revolves around observing and understanding the Antarctic environment, which aligns perfectly with the purpose of a research vessel.

• Why Option 1 is Incorrect: While submarines can operate underwater, the 'Shokalskiy' is not a submarine. It's a surface vessel designed for navigating and conducting research on the surface of the ocean, particularly in icy conditions. The narrative in the text focuses on observations made from the ship and on land, not from underwater.

• Why Option 2 is Incorrect: The text doesn't mention a helicopter rescue related to the 'Shokalskiy' itself. While ships can sometimes carry helicopters for various purposes, the primary function of the 'Shokalskiy' is as a research platform, not as a vessel requiring or facilitating a helicopter rescue operation in the context of the story.

• Why Option 4 is Incorrect: The 'Shokalskiy' is a ship, not an airplane. While some airplanes can land on water, this is not a characteristic of the 'Shokalskiy,' nor is it relevant to its role in the narrative. The story describes a sea voyage, not an aerial journey.

Margaret Atwood has won the Booker Prize for Literature twice, making Option 4 the correct answer. She won the prize in 2000 for The Blind Assassin and again in 2019 (jointly with Bernardine Evaristo) for The Testaments.

Here's why the other options are incorrect:

• Option 1: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala: While Ruth Prawer Jhabvala won the Booker Prize in 1975 for Heat and Dust, she only won it once.

• Option 2: Iris Murdoch: Iris Murdoch won the Booker Prize in 1978 for The Sea, The Sea, but she only won it once.

• Option 3: Michael Ondaatje: Michael Ondaatje won the Booker Prize in 1992 for The English Patient (jointly with Barry Unsworth). He also won the Golden Booker Prize in 2018 for the same novel. However, the Golden Booker is a special one-off award celebrating the best novel from the prize's first 50 years, not a standard Booker Prize win. Therefore, he has only won the Booker Prize once.

Therefore, only Margaret Atwood has won the Booker Prize for Literature twice, confirming Option 4 as the correct answer.