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
Q196. > In February 2010 the Medical Council of India announced a major change
> in the regulation governing the establishment of medical colleges.
> With this change, corporate entities were permitted to open medical
> colleges. The new regulation also carried the following warning:
> “permission shall be withdrawn if the colleges resort to
> commercialization”. Since the regulation does not elaborate on what
> constitutes “resorting to commercialization”, this will presumably be
> a matter left to the discretion of the Government. A basic requirement
> for a new medical college is a pre-existing hospital that will serve
> as a teaching hospital. Corporate entities have hospitals in the major
> metros and that is where they will have to locate medical colleges.
> The earlier mandated land requirement for a medical college campus, a
> minimum of 25 acres of contiguous land, cannot be fulfilled in the
> metros. Not surprisingly, yet another tweak has been made in the
> regulation, prescribing 10 acres as the new minimum campus size for 9
> cities including the main metros. With this, the stage is set for
> corporate entities to enter the medical education market. Until now,
> medical education in India has been projected as a not-for profit
> activity to be organised for the public good. While private bodies can
> run medical colleges, these can only be societies or trusts, legally
> non-profit organizations. In opening the door to corporate colleges,
> thus, a major policy change has been effected without changing the law
> or even a discussion in Parliament, but by simply getting a compliant
> MCI to change the regulation on establishment of medical colleges.
> This and another changes have been justified in the name of addressing
> the shortage of doctors. At the same time, over 50 existing medical
> colleges, including 15 run by the government, have been prohibited
> from admitting students in 2010 for having failed to meet the basic
> standards prescribed. Ninety per cent of these colleges have come up
> in the last 5 years. Particularly shocking is the phenomenon of
> government colleges falling short of standards approved by the
> Government. Why are state government institutions not able to meet the
> requirements that have been approved by the central government? A
> severe problem faced by government-run institutions is attracting and
> retaining teaching faculty, and this is likely to be among the major
> reasons for these colleges failing to satisfy the MCI norms. The
> crisis building up on the faculty front has been flagged by various
> commissions looking into problems of medical education over the years.
> An indicator of the crisis is the attempt to conjure up faculty when
> MCI carries out inspections of new colleges, one of its regulatory
> functions. Judging by news reports, the practice of presenting fake
> faculty – students or private medical practitioners hired for the day
> – during MCI inspections in private colleges is common. What is
> interesting is that even government colleges are adopting unscrupulous
> methods. Another indicator is the extraordinary scheme, verging on the
> ridiculous that is being put in place by the MCI to make inspections
> ‘foolproof’. Faculty in all medical colleges are to be issued an
> RFID-based smart card by th MCI with a unique Faculty Number. The
> card, it is argued, will eliminate the possibility of a teacher being
> shown on the faculty of more than one college and establish if the
> qualifications of a teacher are genuine. In the future, it is
> projected that biometric RFID readers will be installed in the
> colleges that will enable a Faculty Identification, Tracking and
> Monitoring System to monitor faculty from within the college and even
> remotely from MCI headquarters. The picture above does not even start
> to reveal the true and pathetic situation of medical care especially
> in rural India. Only a fraction of the doctors and nursing
> professionals serve rural areas where 70 per cent of our population
> lives. The Health Ministry, with the help of the MCI, has been active
> in proposing yet another ‘innovative’ solution to the problem of lack
> of doctors in the rural areas. The proposal is for a
> three-and-a-half-year course to obtain the degree of Bachelor of Rural
> Medicine and Surgery (BRMS). Only rural candidates would be able to
> join this course. The study and training would happen at two different
> levels – Community Health Centers for 18 months, and sub-divisional
> hospitals for a further period of 2 years – and be conducted by
> retired professors. After completion of training, they would only be
> able to serve in their own state in district hospitals, community
> health centres, and primary health centres. The BRMS proposal has
> invited sharp criticism from some doctors’ organizations on the
> grounds that it is discriminatory to have two different standards of
> health care – one for urban and the other for rural areas, and that
> the health care provided by such graduates will be compromised. At the
> other end is the opinion expressed by some that “something is better
> than nothing”, that since doctors do not want to serve in rural areas,
> the government may as well create a new cadre of medics who will be
> obliged to serve there. The debate will surely pick up after the
> government formally lays out its plans. What is apparent is that
> neither this proposal nor the various stopgap measures adopted so far
> address the root of the problem of health care. The far larger issue
> is government policy, the low priority attached by the government to
> the social sector as a whole and the health sector in particular,
> evidenced in the paltry allocations for maintaining and upgrading
> medical infrastructure and medical education and for looking after
> precious human resources.
What is the author’s main intention behind writing this passage?
- To make the general public aware of the healthcare facilities available in India
- To bring to light the problems faced by the healthcare sector in India despite changes suggested and goad the government into attaching priority to the sector
- To bring to light the problems faced by rural people in terms of healthcare facilities and thus exhort urban doctors to serve in the rural areas
- To make the general public aware of the benefits arising from the changes brought about by the MCI in the healthcare secto To urge the corporate bodies to look into the matter of healthcare facilities in the rural areas
Solution : To bring to light the problems faced by the healthcare sector in India despite changes suggested and goad the government into attaching priority to the sector
Q197. > For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would
> increase the number of troops in Iraq only if, the commanders on the
> ground asked him to do so. It was not a throw away live. Bush said it
> from the very first days of the war, when he and pentagon boss Donald
> Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said
> it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in
> Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey will make the
> decisions as to how many troops we have there. Seasoned military
> people suspected that the line was a dodge that the civilians who ran
> the pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought
> on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more in
> any case the president repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion
> that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the
> generals on the ground? Now as the war nears the end of its fourth
> year and the number of Americans killed has surpassed 3,000 Bush has
> dropped the generals know best line sometime next week the president
> is expected to propose a surge in the number of 45 forces in Iraq for
> a period of up to two years. A senior official said reinforcements
> numbering about 20,000 troops and may be more could be in place within
> months; the surge would be achieved by extending the stay of some
> forces already in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others.
>
> The irony is that while the generals would have liked more troops in
> the past, they are cool to the idea of spending more now that’s in
> past because the politicians and commanders had trouble agreeing on
> what the goal of a surge would further erode the readiness of the US’s
> already stressed ground forces and even those who back a surge are
> under no illusions about what it would mean to the casualty rate. If
> you put more American troops on the front line said a white house
> official, you’re going to have more casualties. Coming from Bush, a
> man known for bold strokes the surge is a strange half-measure-too
> large for the political climate at house too small to crush the
> insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late Bush has waved off
> a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride stubbornness or ideology or
> same combination of the three, Rather than reversing course, as all
> the wise elders of the Iraq study group advised, the commander in
> chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one white
> house official calls “victory.”
Bush and Rumsfeld had received brick bats for-
- waging a war against Iraq
- testing their personal theories
- their assertion in the news conference in Chicago
- turning down the demands of general George Casey
- None of these
Solution : None of these
Q198. > For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would
> increase the number of troops in Iraq only if, the commanders on the
> ground asked him to do so. It was not a throw away live. Bush said it
> from the very first days of the war, when he and pentagon boss Donald
> Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said
> it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in
> Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey will make the
> decisions as to how many troops we have there. Seasoned military
> people suspected that the line was a dodge that the civilians who ran
> the pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought
> on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more in
> any case the president repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion
> that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the
> generals on the ground? Now as the war nears the end of its fourth
> year and the number of Americans killed has surpassed 3,000 Bush has
> dropped the generals know best line sometime next week the president
> is expected to propose a surge in the number of 45 forces in Iraq for
> a period of up to two years. A senior official said reinforcements
> numbering about 20,000 troops and may be more could be in place within
> months; the surge would be achieved by extending the stay of some
> forces already in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others.
>
> The irony is that while the generals would have liked more troops in
> the past, they are cool to the idea of spending more now that’s in
> past because the politicians and commanders had trouble agreeing on
> what the goal of a surge would further erode the readiness of the US’s
> already stressed ground forces and even those who back a surge are
> under no illusions about what it would mean to the casualty rate. If
> you put more American troops on the front line said a white house
> official, you’re going to have more casualties. Coming from Bush, a
> man known for bold strokes the surge is a strange half-measure-too
> large for the political climate at house too small to crush the
> insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late Bush has waved off
> a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride stubbornness or ideology or
> same combination of the three, Rather than reversing course, as all
> the wise elders of the Iraq study group advised, the commander in
> chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one white
> house official calls “victory.”
George Bush gave an impression to his subjects that his army commanders were given the autonomy to decide-
- when to start or stop the war in Iraq
- the reasonable requirement of American troops to fight the war in Iraq
- how many troops should Iraq use to fight against the Americans
- the pentagon policies regarding war in Iraq
- None of these
Solution : the reasonable requirement of American troops to fight the war in Iraq
Q199. > For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would
> increase the number of troops in Iraq only if, the commanders on the
> ground asked him to do so. It was not a throw away live. Bush said it
> from the very first days of the war, when he and pentagon boss Donald
> Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said
> it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in
> Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey will make the
> decisions as to how many troops we have there. Seasoned military
> people suspected that the line was a dodge that the civilians who ran
> the pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought
> on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more in
> any case the president repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion
> that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the
> generals on the ground? Now as the war nears the end of its fourth
> year and the number of Americans killed has surpassed 3,000 Bush has
> dropped the generals know best line sometime next week the president
> is expected to propose a surge in the number of 45 forces in Iraq for
> a period of up to two years. A senior official said reinforcements
> numbering about 20,000 troops and may be more could be in place within
> months; the surge would be achieved by extending the stay of some
> forces already in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others.
>
> The irony is that while the generals would have liked more troops in
> the past, they are cool to the idea of spending more now that’s in
> past because the politicians and commanders had trouble agreeing on
> what the goal of a surge would further erode the readiness of the US’s
> already stressed ground forces and even those who back a surge are
> under no illusions about what it would mean to the casualty rate. If
> you put more American troops on the front line said a white house
> official, you’re going to have more casualties. Coming from Bush, a
> man known for bold strokes the surge is a strange half-measure-too
> large for the political climate at house too small to crush the
> insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late Bush has waved off
> a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride stubbornness or ideology or
> same combination of the three, Rather than reversing course, as all
> the wise elders of the Iraq study group advised, the commander in
> chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one white
> house official calls “victory.”
From the content of the passage, which of the following can be definitely inferred?
(A) The US troops in Iraq are happy with their victory
(B) The troops already fighting the war in Iraq are sufficient enough to combat the situation effectively
(C) The Generals who were earlier not in favor of increasing troops in Iraq are now insisting on surge.
- A and B only
- B and C only
- A and C only
- None
- All of three
Solution : None
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
Q200. > For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would
> increase the number of troops in Iraq only if, the commanders on the
> ground asked him to do so. It was not a throw away live. Bush said it
> from the very first days of the war, when he and pentagon boss Donald
> Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said
> it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in
> Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey will make the
> decisions as to how many troops we have there. Seasoned military
> people suspected that the line was a dodge that the civilians who ran
> the pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought
> on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more in
> any case the president repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion
> that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the
> generals on the ground? Now as the war nears the end of its fourth
> year and the number of Americans killed has surpassed 3,000 Bush has
> dropped the generals know best line sometime next week the president
> is expected to propose a surge in the number of 45 forces in Iraq for
> a period of up to two years. A senior official said reinforcements
> numbering about 20,000 troops and may be more could be in place within
> months; the surge would be achieved by extending the stay of some
> forces already in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others.
>
> The irony is that while the generals would have liked more troops in
> the past, they are cool to the idea of spending more now that’s in
> past because the politicians and commanders had trouble agreeing on
> what the goal of a surge would further erode the readiness of the US’s
> already stressed ground forces and even those who back a surge are
> under no illusions about what it would mean to the casualty rate. If
> you put more American troops on the front line said a white house
> official, you’re going to have more casualties. Coming from Bush, a
> man known for bold strokes the surge is a strange half-measure-too
> large for the political climate at house too small to crush the
> insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late Bush has waved off
> a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride stubbornness or ideology or
> same combination of the three, Rather than reversing course, as all
> the wise elders of the Iraq study group advised, the commander in
> chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one white
> house official calls “victory.”
Which of the following best describes Bush’s persistent reaction to the observations that the Iraq war strategy was not effective due to inadequate American forces?
- Such strategies are better left to army commanders to decide on the ground.
- Civilians are the best assessors of such strategies
- War can be fought on the cheap
- The brass knew better of war but not of politics.
- None of these
Solution : Such strategies are better left to army commanders to decide on the ground.
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.