|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
28 Sep 2020, 19:19
Kudos
Bookmarks
align=justify]
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, launched an ill-fated anti-alcohol campaign in the then Soviet
Union. The anti-alcohol campaign had some beneficial public health consequences: Crime
fell and life expectancy rose. But the campaign was a political and economic disaster.
Gorbachev forgot that the addiction of the state to alcohol revenue was even more incurable
than the addiction of some citizens to alcohol itself. The budgetary losses created an
economic crisis. Historians suspect that more than the loss of the Soviet Empire, it was this
campaign that delegitimised Gorbachev. An old Soviet joke went like this: A disaffected and
angry citizen, fed up of standing in lines for vodka, decided to go assassinate Gorbachev. He
soon came back and ruefully reported that the lines to assassinate Gorbachev were even
longer than the lines for Vodka. As the lockdown eased in India, and social distancing went
for a toss at alcohol outlets, we were reminded of how difficult an issue alcohol is to
rationally discuss in India. The stampede was caused by the ineptness with which the opening
was handled in most cities. Alcohol has also migrated from being a question of personal
freedom and choice to an issue in broader cultural wars, an odd site on which we measure
progressivism in India. It is also a window on how liberalism has been misunderstood.
Liberals should, rightly, be suspicious of prohibition on moral and practical grounds.
Government grossly exceeds its legitimate power when it interferes with the rights of
individuals to lead their lives as they please, and fashion their selves after their own ideals,
interests and preferences. And certainly, moralism or puritanism on alcohol cannot be the
basis of state policy. That moralism has no basis, and it violates the dignity and freedom of
individuals.
[Excerpt from an Opinion by Bhanu Pratap Mehta, The Indian Express, May 7, 2020]
[/align]
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, launched an ill-fated anti-alcohol campaign in the then Soviet
Union. The anti-alcohol campaign had some beneficial public health consequences: Crime
fell and life expectancy rose. But the campaign was a political and economic disaster.
Gorbachev forgot that the addiction of the state to alcohol revenue was even more incurable
than the addiction of some citizens to alcohol itself. The budgetary losses created an
economic crisis. Historians suspect that more than the loss of the Soviet Empire, it was this
campaign that delegitimised Gorbachev. An old Soviet joke went like this: A disaffected and
angry citizen, fed up of standing in lines for vodka, decided to go assassinate Gorbachev. He
soon came back and ruefully reported that the lines to assassinate Gorbachev were even
longer than the lines for Vodka. As the lockdown eased in India, and social distancing went
for a toss at alcohol outlets, we were reminded of how difficult an issue alcohol is to
rationally discuss in India. The stampede was caused by the ineptness with which the opening
was handled in most cities. Alcohol has also migrated from being a question of personal
freedom and choice to an issue in broader cultural wars, an odd site on which we measure
progressivism in India. It is also a window on how liberalism has been misunderstood.
Liberals should, rightly, be suspicious of prohibition on moral and practical grounds.
Government grossly exceeds its legitimate power when it interferes with the rights of
individuals to lead their lives as they please, and fashion their selves after their own ideals,
interests and preferences. And certainly, moralism or puritanism on alcohol cannot be the
basis of state policy. That moralism has no basis, and it violates the dignity and freedom of
individuals.
[Excerpt from an Opinion by Bhanu Pratap Mehta, The Indian Express, May 7, 2020]
1. In the above passage, the author uses a/an__________ to strengthen his argument.:
a) Metaphor
b) Analogy
c) Personification
d) None of the above
a) Metaphor
b) Analogy
c) Personification
d) None of the above
2. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?:
a) State must not interfere at all with the individual‘s right to drink.
b) Liberalism has always been misunderstood.
c) It is very difficult to discuss any issue relating to personal freedom of individuals with
rationality in India.
d) None of the above.
a) State must not interfere at all with the individual‘s right to drink.
b) Liberalism has always been misunderstood.
c) It is very difficult to discuss any issue relating to personal freedom of individuals with
rationality in India.
d) None of the above.
3. Which of the following statements weakens the argument that Moralism on Alcohol
cannot be the basis of State Policy?:
a) The State should not interfere with people‘s right to drink; but there will be a backlash if
drinking takes forms that inflict great social harms.
b) Freedom should not be divorced from Moderation.
c) The State should not interfere in matters of sexuality or intimacy. But norms of freedom
will impose serious costs and will not survive if the expressions of sexuality are consistently
degrading or violent, as we have seen in the locker room scandals.
d) All of the above.
cannot be the basis of State Policy?:
a) The State should not interfere with people‘s right to drink; but there will be a backlash if
drinking takes forms that inflict great social harms.
b) Freedom should not be divorced from Moderation.
c) The State should not interfere in matters of sexuality or intimacy. But norms of freedom
will impose serious costs and will not survive if the expressions of sexuality are consistently
degrading or violent, as we have seen in the locker room scandals.
d) All of the above.
4. Which of the following is true as per the passage above?:
a) Liberals should not be concerned about prohibition on Alcohol at all.
b) Moralism should be based on justified ideals.
c) Moralism must not be the basis of any State action.
d) All of the above.
a) Liberals should not be concerned about prohibition on Alcohol at all.
b) Moralism should be based on justified ideals.
c) Moralism must not be the basis of any State action.
d) All of the above.
5. According to the passage, which of the following could be part of State‘s policy to
regulate Alcohol use in India?
I. Ban on Alcohol shops.
II. Education on Intelligent Drinking.
III. Regulating Outlet density of Alcohol shops
IV. Community Intervention Policy:
a) I, II and III
b) II and IV
c) II, III and IV
d) I, II, III and IV.
regulate Alcohol use in India?
I. Ban on Alcohol shops.
II. Education on Intelligent Drinking.
III. Regulating Outlet density of Alcohol shops
IV. Community Intervention Policy:
a) I, II and III
b) II and IV
c) II, III and IV
d) I, II, III and IV.
28 Sep 2020, 19:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi! guys I have recently given an Indian Law entrance examination
This passage was asked in the exam and I feel that many answers in the provisional answer key released by them is wrong
(I have given the answers here on gmatclub as per the provisional answer key )
If u find any of these questions/answers debatable plz provide an explanation why it is so.(This would help me as the examination body is considering any objections raised)
This passage was asked in the exam and I feel that many answers in the provisional answer key released by them is wrong
(I have given the answers here on gmatclub as per the provisional answer key )
If u find any of these questions/answers debatable plz provide an explanation why it is so.(This would help me as the examination body is considering any objections raised)
