IBPS PO English Language Questions with Answers Practice online test 34

Description: free IBPS PO English Language Questions with Answers Practice test 34 for IBPS PO Preliminary and Main online test Prepare bank PO banking mock exams adda

1 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
It is often believed that India's forming close relations with Israe
A.  may please the US B.    may prove dangerous for any other front
C.  may irk the Islamic nations D.    may prove detrimental for our neighours
E.    None of these
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
2 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
What has kept away India and Israel from coming close to each other for long?
A.  Israel has never taken seriously the terrorist strikes in India B.    Both the countries have dif ferent perception on terrorism
C.  Israel is a Zionist state, whereas India is a secular nation D.    US-Israel closeness has always irked Indian.
E.    None of these
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
3 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
Which of the following is most nearly the same in meaning as the word 'thrive' as used in the passage?
A.  consist B.    grow
C.  rely D.    survive
E.    focus
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
4 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
Which of the following is most opposite in meaning of the word 'foreseeable'as used in the passage?
A.  futuristic B.    past
C.  imaginary D.    unpredictable
E.    bygone
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
5 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
Which of the following is most nearly the same in meaning as the word 'residual'as used in the passage?
A.  unusual B.    strange
C.  virtual D.    discernible
E.    remaining
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
6 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
Which of the following is most opposite in meaning to the word 'deliberately' as used in the passage?
A.  unwittingly B.    predictably
C.  illegally D.    softly
E.    hestitatingly
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
7 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
Which of the following is most nearly the same in meaning as the word 'naivete' as used in the passage?
A.  notion B.    theory
C.  credulousness D.    judgement
E.    formula
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
8 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
Which of the following is most nearly the same in meaning as the word 'preclude' as used in the passage?
A.  deviate B.    blur
C.  complex D.    prevent
E.    blend
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
9 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

For much of the Cold War era, India enjoyed a strong military and strategic relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union. A relationship which stood the country in good steadon a number of occasions, most notably during the Bangladesh war of 1971. So, while it's true that no two countries in the world, the big ones even less so, share i denti cal i nterests, thi s necessary divergence, by itself, does not $preclude$ the possibility of a strategic alliance. Indeed, as the US-Israel relationship has repeatedly shown, a strategic tie-up can quite easily live with, even $thrive on$,occasional friction and strife. In other words, the question whether there can be a three-way strategic axis - involving India, Israel and the US - cannot be dismissed out of hand. At the very least, there does exist a strong basis for such a relationship to evolve and endure.
Call it jehad, fundamentalism or plain nzihilist violence, but India, Israel and the US are today the three leading targets of terror in the world and will remain so in the$ foreseeable$ future. And, while New Delhi can legitimately complain about how terrorist strikes against it have been $deliberately$ downpl ayed i n Washington and Jerusalem, it's only a matter of ti me bef ore these $residual$ differences of perception - the legacy of a different historical epoch - are ironed out. Witness the remarkable turnaround, post-9/11, in the American stand on the so-called 'freedom struggle' being waged against India in Kashmir. As for Israel, it has al ways been keen on a close, long-term relationship with India. The reason that the two countries have stayed apart has to do with a misguided reluctance on the part of India's leadership to do business with the Zionist state: During Nehru's time, in the belief that international realpolitik can be conducted on the basis of simple moral precepts. And, after Nehru, in the perception that global geopolitics is a zerosum game: A close bond with Israel must necessarily come at the expense of the larger Muslim world. Clearly, the sooner we give up this romantic $naivete$, the better it will be hot just for India but for the larger democratic world, including Israel and the US?
What is the main concern of the author behind writing this passage?
A.  The author wants the revival of ties between India and Russia B.    The author holds the Islamic world responsible for sponsoring terrorism
C.  The author wants a worldwide front to address the issue of terrorism D.    The author advocates for an Indo-USIsrael relationship to jointly fight against terrorism
E.    None of these
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
10 . Rearrange the following sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) to make a meaningful paragraph and answer the questions that follow:

A. However, while reading, they would not know when to pause and what to emphasise.

B. Since then their use has been regularised and the punctuation rules have been followed by all.

C. In earlier days, people learnt by reading out loud.

D. But not everybody used the same punctuations for the same thing.

E. To address this problem, various signs depicti ng various punctuations were introduced.

F. Thus, firmer guidelines regarding punctuations were framed so that everyone used them in a similar way.
Which of the following sentences should be the SECOND after rearrangement?
A.  A B.    B
C.  D D.    E
E.    F
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum

© 2017 by IBPSadda . All Rights Reserved | Copyright | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy

Contact us: info@ibpsadda.com