Home / Elitmus / eLitmus English Reading Comprehension Question And Answer

eLitmus English Reading Comprehension Question And Answer

eLitmus English Reading Comprehension Question And Answer

eLitmus English Reading Comprehension Question And Answer

The great event of the New York cultural season of 1882 was the visit of the sixty-twoyear-old English philosopher and social commentator Herbert Spencer. Nowhere did Spencer have a larger or more enthusiastic following than in the United States, where such works as ―Social Statics and ―The Data of Ethics were celebrated as powerful justifications for laissezfaire capitalism. Competition was preordained; its result was progress; and any institution that stood in the way of individual liberties was violating the natural order. ―Survival of the fittest —a phrase that Charles Darwin took from Spencer—made free competition a social as well as a natural law. Spencer was, arguably, the single most influential systematic thinker of the nineteenth century, but his influence, compared with that of Darwin, Marx, or Mill, was short-lived. In 1937, the Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons asked, ―Who now reads Spencer? Seventy years later, the question remains pertinent, even if no one now reads Talcott Parsons, either. In his day, Spencer was the greatest of philosophical hedgehogs: his popularity stemmed from the Page 54 fact that he had one big, easily grasped idea and a mass of more particular ideas that supposedly flowed from the big one. The big idea was evolution, but, while Darwin applied it to species change, speculating about society and culture only with reluctance, Spencer saw evolution working everywhere. ―This law of organic progress is the law of all progress, he wrote, ―whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, in the development of Society, of Government, of Manufactures, of Commerce, of Language, Literature, Science, [or] Art. Spencer has been tagged as a social Darwinist, but it would be more correct to think of Darwin as a biological Spencerian. Spencer was very well known as an evolutionist long before Darwin‘s ―On the Origin of Species was published, in 1859, and people who had limited interest in the finches of the Galápagos had a great interest in whether the state should provide for the poor or whether it was right to colonize India.

1.Why did Spencer have a large enthusiastic following in the United States?

A.Because he believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution
B.Because his work was perceived to justify capitalism
C.Because he was a English philosopher
D.None of these

Correct Answer :B

2.Which of the following will the author agree to?

A.Mill, Marx and Darwin are more famous than Spencer as of today.
B.Spencer is more famous than Mill, Marx and Darwin as of today.
C.Mill, Darwin, Marx and Spencer are equally famous
D.Mill, Darwin, Marx and Parsons are very famous today today.

Correct Answer :A

3.What does Talcott Parson’s statement, “Who now reads Spencer?” imply?

A.No one read Spencer in 1937
B.He is asking a question to his students.
C.Everyone should read Spencer
D.None of these

Correct Answer :A

4.What could possibly “laissez-faire” mean as inferred from the context in which it has been used in the passage?

A.Restricted
B.Not interfered by the government
C.Unprincipled
D.Uncompetitive

Correct Answer :B

5.According to the author, why was Spencer so popular in the 19th Century?

A.He supported capitalism
B.He extended Darwin’s theory of evolution to a lot of things.
C.He had one broad and simple idea and many specific ideas flowed from it.
D.He was a friend of Parson’s.

Correct Answer :C

6.What is the author most likely to agree to in the following?

A.Darwin’s idea of evolution preceded that of Spencer
B.Both Darwin and Spencer got the idea of the evolution at the same time
C.Spencer’s idea of evolution preceded that of Darwin
D.Darwin and Spencer worked on totally different models of evolution

Correct Answer :C

7.What must have been the most-likely response/reaction of the New York audience to Spencer’s talk in 1882?

A.Vindication
B.Surprise
C.Happiness
D.Depression

Correct Answer :B

8.Which people is the author referring to in the statement: “people who had limited interest in the finches of the Galápagos”?

A.People who were not interested in the bird finch
B.People who were not interested in finches in particular from Galapagos.
C.People who were not interested in animal species or natural evolution
D.People who did not have interest in birds.

Correct Answer :C

The word euthanasia is of Greek origin and literally means “a good death.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “the act of killing a person painlessly for reasons of mercy.” Such killing can be done through active means, such as administering a lethal injection, or by passive means, such as withholding medical care or food and water. In recent years in the United States, there have been numerous cases of active euthanasia in the news. They usually involve the deliberate killing of ill or incapacitated persons by relatives or friends who plead that they can no longer bear to see their loved ones suffer. Although such killings are a crime, the perpetrators are often dealt with leniently by our legal system, and the media usually portrays them as compassionate heroes who take personal risks to save another from unbearable suffering. The seeming acceptance of active forms of euthanasia is alarming, but we face a bigger, more insidious threat from passive forms of euthanasia. Every year, in hospitals and nursing homes around the country, there are growing numbers of documented deaths caused by caregivers withholding life-sustaining care, including food and water, from vulnerable patients who cannot speak for themselves. While it is illegal to kill someone directly, for example with a gun or knife, in many cases the law has put its stamp of approval on causing death by omitting needed care. Further, many states have “living will” laws designed to protect those who withhold treatment, and there have been numerous court rulings which have approved of patients being denied care and even starved and dehydrated to death. Because such deaths occur quietly within the confines of hospitals and nursing homes, they can be kept hidden from the public. Most euthanasia victims are old or very ill, so their deaths might be attributed to a cause other than the denial of care that really killed them. Further, it is often relatives of the patient who request that care be withheld. In one court case, the court held that decisions to withhold life-sustaining care may be made not only by close family members but also by a number of third parties, and that such decisions need not be reviewed by the judicial system if there is no disagreement between decision makers and medical staff. The court went so far as to rule that a nursing home may not refuse to participate in the fatal withdrawal of food and water from an incompetent patient! “Extraordinary” or “heroic” treatment need not be used when the chance for recovery is poor and medical intervention would serve only to prolong the dying process. But to deny customary and reasonable care or to deliberately starve or dehydrate someone because he or she is very old or very ill should not be permitted. Most of the cases coming before the courts do not involve withholding heroic measures from imminently dying people, but rather they seek approval for denying basic care, such as administration of food and water, to people who are not elderly or terminally ill, but who are permanently incapacitated. These people could be expected to live indefinitely, though in an impaired state, if they were given food and water and minimal treatment. No one has the right to judge that another’s life is not worth living. The basic right to life should not be abridged because someone decides that someone else’s quality of life is too low. If we base the right to life on quality of life standards, there is no logical place to draw the line. To protect vulnerable patients, we must foster more positive attitudes towards people with serious and incapacitating illnesses and conditions. Despite the ravages of their diseases, they are still our fellow human beings and deserve our care and respect. We must also enact positive legislation that will protect vulnerable people from those who consider their lives meaningless or too costly to maintain and who would cause their deaths by withholding life-sustaining care such as food and water.

9. The tone of the author can best be described as

A.pleading
B.argumentative
C.compassionate
D.emphatic
E.empathetic

Correct Answer :C

10.In paragraph 3, the author finds starvation and dehydration induced euthanasia is to be “more insidious” because

A.euthanasia is legally considered to be a criminal act
B.the public’s attitude toward euthanasia is becoming more positive
C.it often involves those who cannot protest
D.the patient has asked to die with dignity
E.its perpetrators are viewed as kindly caregivers

Correct Answer :C

11.As used in paragraph 3, what is the best synonym for insidious?

A.mischievous
B.treacherous
C.seductive
D.apparent
E.cumulative

Correct Answer :B

12.The author maintains that death by withholding care is

A.largely confined to hospitals
B.largely confined to the terminally ill
C.often requested by family members
D.approved by living wills
E.difficult to prove if prosecuted

Correct Answer :C

13.As used in paragraph 7, which is the best definition of abridged?
A.trimmed
B.curtailed
C.lengthened
D.protracted
E.compressed

Correct Answer :B

14.Using the passage as a guide, it can be inferred that the author would find euthanasia less objectionable in cases in which I. the patient’s death is imminent II. the patient has left instructions in a living will not to provide care III. the patient refuses to accept nourishment

A.I only
B.II only
C.II and III only
D.I and II only
E.I, II and III

Correct Answer :C

15.The main idea of paragraph 7 is that

A.lawyers will be unable to prosecute or defend caregivers
B.no comprehensive right or wrong definition of euthanasia will exist
C.using a subjective standard will make the decision to end an individual’s life arbitrary
D.no boundary will exist between euthanasia and care omission
E.‘quality of life’ will no longer be able to be rigidly defined

Correct Answer :C

16.In the final paragraph the author writes, “Despite the ravages of their diseases, they are still our fellow human beings and deserve our care and respect.” The main purpose of this statement is to

A.prove a previous argument
B.illustrate an example
C.gainsay a later statement
D.justify an earlier statement
E.object to a larger idea

Correct Answer :E

 

 

 

 

Check Also

Elitmus Quantitative Aptitude Question And Answers

Elitmus Quantitative Aptitude Question And Answers Number System  Mixtures and Alligations  Percentage  Time and Work  …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *