There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Choose the word, which is most opposite in meaning of the word, printed in bold as used in the passage Deleterious

• Beneficial

• Harmful

• Irreparable

• Irreparable

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
The author's most important objective of writing the above passage seems to

• Highlight the use of nuclear weapons as an effective population control measures.

• Illustrate the devastating effects of use of nuclear weapons on mankind.

• Duly highlight the supremacy of the nations which possess nuclear weapons.

• Duly highlight the supremacy of the nations which possess nuclear weapons.

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
The scientists engaged in manufacturing destructive weapons are

• Very few in number

• Irresponsible and incompetent

• More than half of the total number

• More than half of the total number

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
According to the passage, the argument on use and manufacture of nuclear weapons

• Does not stand the test of legality

• Possesses legal strength although it does not have moral standing

• Is acceptable only on moral grounds

• Is acceptable only on moral grounds

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
The author of the passage seems to be of the view that

• Utilization of scientific skills in manufacture of weapons is appropriate

• Manufacture of weapons of death would help eradication of poverty.

• Spending money on manufacture of weapons may be justifiable subject to the availability of funds.
  
  

• Spending money on manufacture of weapons may be justifiable subject to the availability of funds.
  
  

6.

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Which of the following is one of the consequences of nuclear war?

• Fertility of land will last for a year or so.

• Post-war survivors being very few will have abundant food.

• Lights would be cooler and more comfortable.

• Lights would be cooler and more comfortable.

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.
Which of the following best explains the word devoted, as used in the passage?

• Dedicated for a good cause

• Utilised for betterment

• Abused for destruction

• Abused for destruction

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.

The biological consequences of nuclear war as given in the passage include all the following,
except

• Fall in temperature below zero degree Celsius

• Ultraviolet radiation

• High does of ionizing

• High does of ionizing

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.

It appears from the passage that the use of nuclear weapons is considered against
morality by

• Only such of those nations who cannot afford to manufacture and sell
  weapons

• Almost all the nations of the world

• Only the superpowers who can afford to manufacture and sell weapons

• Only the superpowers who can afford to manufacture and sell weapons

There is a fairly universal sentiment that the use of nuclear weapons is clearly contrary to
morality and that its production probably so, does not go far enough. These activities are
not only opposed to morality but also to law if the legal objection can be added to the moral,
the argument against the use and the manufacture of these weapons will considerably be
reinforced. Now the time is ripe to evaluate the responsibility of scientists who knowingly
use their expertise for the construction of such weapons, which has deleterious effect on
mankind.
To this must be added the fact that more than 50 percent of the skilled scientific manpower in
the world is now engaged in the armaments industry. How appropriate it is that all this
valuable skill should be devoted to the manufacture of weapons of death in a world of
poverty is a question that must touch the scientific conscience.
A meeting of biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological consequences of nuclear war
added frightening dimension to those forecasts. Its report suggested that the long
biological effects resulting from climatic changes may at least be as serious as the immediate
ones. Sub-freezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet
radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the
biological support system of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.
Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or
more. Post war survivors would face starvation as well as freezing
conditions in the dark and be exposed to near lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems
possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere
could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not
affected directly, because of the inter- dependence of the world economy. In either case
the extinction of a large fraction of the earth's animals, plants and microorganism seems
possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric
levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.

Which of the following statements I, II, III and IV is definitely true in the context of the
passage?

• There is every likelihood of survival of the human species as a consequence of nuclear war

• Nuclear war risks and harmful effects are highly exaggerated.
  
  

• The post war survivors would be exposed to the benefits of non-lethal radiation

• The post war survivors would be exposed to the benefits of non-lethal radiation