Reading Comprehension
Reading Comprehension: English Reading Comprehension Exercises with Answers, Sample Passages for Reading Comprehension Test for GRE, CAT, IELTS preparation
Module: {{CourseModule.data.renderable.moduleName}}
Course: {{CourseModule.data.renderable.courseName}}
Test Taken On:
Final Score
You have scored {{report.report.marksScored}} out of {{report.totalScore}}
{{report.report.marksScored}}
/{{report.totalScore}}
{{quesAttempted ? (quesStatus ? 'Correct':'Wrong'): 'Not Attempted'}}
Question# {{questionNumber}}
Answer:
- {{quesCount[$index]}}
{{choice.optionValue}}
Popup is Blocked
The test window pop-up has been blocked by Chrome.
To enable the test:
1: Please click on the pop-up blocked icon 
2: Please select "Always allow pop-ups from learningpundits.com" and click Done.
Take English Reading Comprehension Test
View English Reading Comprehension Test Results
English Reading Comprehension Test Questions and Answers. Improve your ability to read and comprehend English Passages
Q151. > The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place
> in New York from April 27 to May 22 and the process is expected to
> be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant
> anniversaries of conflict: the 100th — of the use of chemical weapons
> in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new
> set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and
> non-nuclear members of the Treaty. Coming into force in 1970, the
> Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have
> left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of
> preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed
> the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence
> of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire
> of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the
> Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on
> the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to
> the NPT debate. The NWS have not been enthused by either of these
> two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine
> will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric
> and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of
> nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern
> Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in West Asia will
> loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria
> and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab
> world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North
> Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a
> marginal issue. The NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a
> hard-fought consensus based on more than 60 action points spread over
> three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament,
> non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. West Asia
> figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free
> zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear
> weapons. This has now been much muddied by Iran’s own nuclear
> programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint
> Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United
> States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China,
> facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition. Three
> preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to
> prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next
> week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has
> never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been
> attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference
> remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and
> intractable as examined hereon. Nuclear disarmament is possibly the
> easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution
> possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is
> likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the
> NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on
> promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their
> commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security
> scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This
> will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the
> humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of
> nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered
> strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and
> tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has
> led the initiative on nuclear security through international
> conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than
> specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a
> large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek
> time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among
> the NWS.
Which of the following Acronyms are not used in the above passage?
- NWS
- JCPOA
- ISI
- IS
- NPT
Solution : ISI
Q152. > The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place
> in New York from April 27 to May 22 and the process is expected to
> be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant
> anniversaries of conflict: the 100th — of the use of chemical weapons
> in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new
> set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and
> non-nuclear members of the Treaty. Coming into force in 1970, the
> Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have
> left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of
> preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed
> the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence
> of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire
> of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the
> Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on
> the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to
> the NPT debate. The NWS have not been enthused by either of these
> two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine
> will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric
> and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of
> nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern
> Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in West Asia will
> loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria
> and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab
> world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North
> Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a
> marginal issue. The NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a
> hard-fought consensus based on more than 60 action points spread over
> three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament,
> non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. West Asia
> figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free
> zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear
> weapons. This has now been much muddied by Iran’s own nuclear
> programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint
> Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United
> States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China,
> facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition. Three
> preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to
> prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next
> week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has
> never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been
> attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference
> remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and
> intractable as examined hereon. Nuclear disarmament is possibly the
> easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution
> possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is
> likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the
> NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on
> promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their
> commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security
> scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This
> will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the
> humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of
> nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered
> strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and
> tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has
> led the initiative on nuclear security through international
> conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than
> specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a
> large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek
> time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among
> the NWS.
Choose an appropriate title for the passage?
- Nuclear Warhead
- No frisson in Talks Over Fission
- Failed Treaty NPT
- Fusion or Fission: Which one is better
- Its all about Nuclear
Solution : No frisson in Talks Over Fission
Q153. > The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take
> place in New York from April 27 to May 22 and the process is
> expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some
> significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th — of the use of
> chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the bombings of
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of
> the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of
> nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty. Coming into force in
> 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures
> which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the
> purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in
> 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as
> a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a
> decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on
> disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before.
> The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given
> a new shape to the NPT debate. The NWS have not been enthused by
> either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian
> actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference.
> Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and
> relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of
> eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in West Asia
> will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel,
> Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the
> Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North
> Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a
> marginal issue. The NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a
> hard-fought consensus based on more than 60 action points spread over
> three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament,
> non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. West Asia
> figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free
> zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear
> weapons. This has now been much muddied by Iran’s own nuclear
> programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint
> Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United
> States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China,
> facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition. Three
> preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to
> prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next
> week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has
> never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been
> attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference
> remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and
> intractable as examined hereon. Nuclear disarmament is possibly the
> easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution
> possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is
> likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the
> NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on
> promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their
> commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security
> scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This
> will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the
> humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of
> nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered
> strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and
> tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has
> led the initiative on nuclear security through international
> conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than
> specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a
> large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek
> time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among
> the NWS.
Which of the following is not true according to the passage?
- The NPT left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained.
- The Review held in 2010 was an utter failure.
- The nuclear shenanigans of North Korea were once viewed as a major global danger.
- China is the part of P5+1 states.
- None of the above
Solution : The Review held in 2010 was an utter failure.
Q154. > The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place
> in New York from April 27 to May 22 and the process is expected to
> be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant
> anniversaries of conflict: the 100th — of the use of chemical weapons
> in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new
> set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and
> non-nuclear members of the Treaty. Coming into force in 1970, the
> Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have
> left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of
> preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed
> the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence
> of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire
> of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the
> Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on
> the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to
> the NPT debate. The NWS have not been enthused by either of these
> two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine
> will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric
> and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of
> nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern
> Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in West Asia will
> loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria
> and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab
> world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North
> Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a
> marginal issue. The NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a
> hard-fought consensus based on more than 60 action points spread over
> three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament,
> non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. West Asia
> figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free
> zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear
> weapons. This has now been much muddied by Iran’s own nuclear
> programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint
> Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United
> States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China,
> facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition. Three
> preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to
> prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next
> week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has
> never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been
> attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference
> remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and
> intractable as examined hereon. Nuclear disarmament is possibly the
> easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution
> possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is
> likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the
> NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on
> promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their
> commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security
> scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This
> will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the
> humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of
> nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered
> strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and
> tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has
> led the initiative on nuclear security through international
> conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than
> specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a
> large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek
> time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among
> the NWS.
In the above passage, the author is not talking about?
- The 2015 Review on NPT
- Last CHOGM meeting held in 2005 and 2010
- Nuclear disarmament of NWS
- All of the above
- None of the above
Solution : Last CHOGM meeting held in 2005 and 2010
Campus Ambassador (Remote Internship)
Are you a college student? You can become a Campus Ambassador for LearningPundits. Promote our Online Contests to students from you college via email, Facebook, posters, WhatsApp and old-fashioned face to face communication
You will receive:
- Stipend based on your performance
- Internship Certificate to boost your Resume
Q155. > The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place
> in New York from April 27 to May 22 and the process is expected to
> be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant
> anniversaries of conflict: the 100th — of the use of chemical weapons
> in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new
> set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and
> non-nuclear members of the Treaty. Coming into force in 1970, the
> Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have
> left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of
> preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed
> the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence
> of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire
> of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the
> Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on
> the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to
> the NPT debate. The NWS have not been enthused by either of these
> two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine
> will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric
> and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of
> nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern
> Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in West Asia will
> loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria
> and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab
> world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North
> Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a
> marginal issue. The NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a
> hard-fought consensus based on more than 60 action points spread over
> three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament,
> non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. West Asia
> figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free
> zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear
> weapons. This has now been much muddied by Iran’s own nuclear
> programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint
> Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United
> States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China,
> facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition. Three
> preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to
> prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next
> week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has
> never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been
> attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference
> remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and
> intractable as examined hereon. Nuclear disarmament is possibly the
> easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution
> possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is
> likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the
> NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on
> promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their
> commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security
> scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This
> will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the
> humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of
> nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered
> strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and
> tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has
> led the initiative on nuclear security through international
> conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than
> specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a
> large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek
> time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among
> the NWS.
Which among the following describes the meaning of the phrase “shenanigans of North Korea”?
- Dishonest Activity
- Uncertainty
- Strained action
- Situation
- None of these
Solution : Dishonest Activity
Q{{($index+1)+((page-1)*LIMITPERPAGE)}}.
Solution :
Grammar Guru
Free Online Contest on English Grammar and Vocabulary.20 mins Only.
- All Participants get Participation Certificates to boost your Resume
Participation Now using Laptop/ Desktop/ Tab/ Mobile.
Math Whiz
Free Online Contest on Aptitude and Reasoning.20 mins Only.
- All Participants get Participation Certificates to boost your Resume
Participation Now using Laptop/ Desktop/ Tab/ Mobile.
Campus Ambassador (Remote Internship)
Are you a college student? You can become a Campus Ambassador for LearningPundits. Promote our Online Contests to students from you college via email, Facebook, posters, WhatsApp and old-fashioned face to face communication
You will receive:
- Stipend based on your performance
- Internship Certificate to boost your Resume
Preparing for Aptitude Tests ? Please go through our courses on Aptitude Questions and try to answer our Online Aptitude Test Questions on Quantitative Aptitude.
Interested in evaluating your Reasoning Skills ? Please go through our courses on Logical Reasoning and Non-Verbal Reasoning to answer our Reasoning Questions.
Interested in learning English and checking your English Grammar ? Do a quick grammar check to evaluate your Basic English Grammar Skills. Improve your English Vocabulary by going through these Vocabulary words.
Wondering how to make a resume ? These resume format for freshers might be helpful. You can also submit your Resume for Review and look and Resume samples available there.
Preparing for an HR Interview or Group Discussion ? These HR interview questions and answers could help you do well in a typical HR interview. These group discussion tips could also be useful.
Searching for jobs ? We have thousand of Fresher Jobs. Feel free to browse through our extensive list of online jobs.