To understand it is one thing; to teach it, is quite_______

• another

• each other

• other

• others

It has been two years I last saw you.

• that

• since

• when

• before

I don't allow anybody _______ in my house.

• to have smoke

• smoking

• to smoke

• for smoking

The underlined auxiliary suggests

The game should be finished by now.

• probability

• conjecture

• deduction

• prediction

The underlined phrase is

His father is the Chairman.

• subject

• subject complement

• object

• object complement

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Which of the following is one of the points weakening the argument of prevent entry of foreign media?

• The foreign media may not be treated on par with the domestic media

• Such entry would be against traditional culture

• The arguments being put forth are at loggerheads

• The threat being voiced by those whose business will be harmed by such an entry

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Which of the following has been the major recommendation regarding the entry of foreign media?

• Allow entry provided they do not ask for duty concessions on import of technology

• Allow entry treating them on with domestic media

• It should be welcomed without putting any restrictions

• It should not be allowed

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Which of the following means 'without let'?

• Without confinement

• Without restrictions

• With no difficulty

• With strings

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Which of the following means loggerheads' as used in the passage?

• Opposite to each other

• Unsuited to each other

• In league with

• Unimportant

Two principles are involved in the controversy about the presence of foreign-controlled media in the country. The free flow of ideas and images across national borders and the need to safeguard the national interest and preserve cultural autonomy. Both are valid but both are at loggerheads because each has been used to promote less lofty goals. The principle conforms to a moral imperative freedom of expression that cannot rhyme with restrictions imposed by any government. But the free flow rhetoric also clouds the fact that the powerful Western and specially American media can and often do present, subtly or brazenly, news in a manner which promotes Western political, ideological and strategic interests. Besides, Western entertainment programmes present lifestyles and values cherished by traditional societies. All this explains why so many Indian newspapers/magazines and news agencies have sought protection from the courts to prevent foreign publications and news agencies from operating in the country. Their arguments are weak on two counts. As the bitter debate on a new world information and communication order demonstrated in the late seventies and early eighties, many of those who resent Western invasion' in the information and cultural fields are no great friends of democracy. Secondly, the threat of such an 'invasion' has been aired by those media groups in the developing countries who fear that their business interests will be harmed if Western groups, equipped with large financial and technological resources and superior management skills are allowed to operate in the country without let. The fear is valid but it goes against the grain of the economic reform programme. The presence of foreign newspapers and television channels will increase competition, which in course of time, can only lead to the up-gradation of dynamic Indian newspapers and television channels even while they drive the rest out of the market. One way to strike a balance between the two antagonistic principles would be to allow foreign media entry into the country, provided the Indian state treats them at par with the domestic media on all fronts. On the import of technology, for instance, foreign media cannot be allowed duty concessions denied to their Indian counterparts. Foreign media will also have to face the legal consequences should they run foul of Indian laws. Why, for example, should the BBC or Time magazine or The Economist get away with showing a map of Kashmir, which is at variance with the official Indian map? Why should they go scot-free when they allow secessionists and terrorists to air their views without giving the government the right of reply? Or when they depict sexually explicit scenes which would otherwise not be cleared by the Censor Board? Since the government can do precious little in the matter, especially about satellite broadcasts, what if it should consider attaching the properties of the offending parties? Demands of this kind are bound to be voiced unless New Delhi makes it clear to the foreign media that they will have to respect Indian susceptibilities, especially where it concerns the country's integrity and its culture. It may be able to derive some inspiration from France's successful attempts in the recent GATT to protect its cinematographic industry.

Why should the entry of foreign media harm local interests?

• Different sets of rules and laws were made applicable for foreign media

• Economic reform programmes will get a setback

• The cultural heritage will be lost

• They are better equipped managerially and technologically