reading-comprehension

Reading Comprehension

Reading Comprehension: English Reading Comprehension Exercises with Answers, Sample Passages for Reading Comprehension Test for GRE, CAT, IELTS preparation

assess-yourself
Take English Reading Comprehension Test
view-results
View English Reading Comprehension Test Results

English Reading Comprehension Test Questions and Answers. Improve your ability to read and comprehend English Passages

Q201. > 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.” The author of the passage appears to be-

  1.  in favor of enhancement of American troops in Iraq
  2.  critical about Bush’s strategy of handling situation in Iraq
  3.  an impartial assessor of the US strategy related to the situation in Iraq.
  4.  an indifferent on looker of what is happening in Iraq
  5.  inclined to the idea of with drawl of American troops to save casualty.

Solution : critical about Bush’s strategy of handling situation in Iraq
Q202. > 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 is the assessment of the commander-in-chief of US forced in Iraq on the present situation there?

  1.  America’s desired goal will be achieved if more troops are deployed in Iraq.
  2.  Withdrawal of troops from Iraq is essential to raise the moral of US army.
  3.  Further strengthening of the US army in Iraq will be suicidal as it means more destruction of US forces.
  4.  Pentagon’s civilians should not have been allowed to interfere with the army commanders’ strategies.
  5.  None of these

Solution : America’s desired goal will be achieved if more troops are deployed in Iraq.

Grammar Guru

Free Online Contest on English Grammar and Vocabulary.20 mins Only.

  • All Participants get Participation Certificates to boost your Resume
  • Cash Vouchers for the top 100 weekly winners

Participation Now using Laptop/ Desktop/ Tab/ Mobile.



Q203. > 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 strategies would achieve the desired increase in American forces in Iraq? (A) Continuation of stay of troops for a further period. (B) Expeditious deployment of additional troops. (C) Seeking additional input from politicians and commanders of neighboring friendly countries.

  1.  A and C only
  2.  C only
  3.  B only
  4.  A and B only
  5.  None of these

Solution : A and B only
Q204. > 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.” Why do the army commanders disfavor enhancement of troops now? (A) More force means more casualties. (B) Difference of opinion between politicians and commanders about the aim of the troop enhancement (C) Probable adverse psychological impact on ground forces.

  1.  Only A and B
  2.  Only B and C
  3.  All the three
  4.  Only A and C
  5.  None of these

Solution : Only B and C

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


Q205. > 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 made Bush change his thinking about the requirement of forces in Iraq? (A) The unreasonably long period for which the war continued (B) The large number of American soldiers killed in the war (C) Demand from the army commanders

  1.  Only A and C
  2.  Only A and B
  3.  Only B and C
  4.  All three
  5.  Only C

Solution : Only A and B
Q{{($index+1)+((page-1)*LIMITPERPAGE)}}.

  1.  

Solution :

Grammar Guru

Free Online Contest on English Grammar and Vocabulary.20 mins Only.

  • All Participants get Participation Certificates to boost your Resume
  • Cash Vouchers for the top 100 weekly winners

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
  • Cash Vouchers for the top 100 weekly winners

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.