Instructions: –
1. Attempt all the questions.
2. Once you have completed all the questions of a particular section click on the submit button for scores and explanations then move to the next sections.
3. For each correct answer, you receive 1 mark. For this mock, there is no negative marking.
English Language
Below a tree lay a pebble. All alone. Whom to talk to? Who to speak to? Lying there alone, he got suffocated. As fate would have it, one day, a leaf came there, flying from a distance. All of a sudden, the pebble found a chance to talk to someone. He was delighted. He accorded great honour and respect to the leaf who had come to his home. One day, the pebble told the leaf, ‘My dear friend, please don’t go anywhere and leave me alone. I cannot even live a second without you now.’
‘Leave a friend like you and go?’ replied the leaf. ‘I’m not that big a fool! But if strong winds blow, how will I stay in one place? I will have to fly with the winds.’ The pebble thought hard and finally came up with a solution. ‘Don’t you worry about this! I won’t let you fly away even if the father of all storms passes through here. As soon as the winds blow, I will sit on you. Even if gusts of winds blow, I won’t let you be blown away with it. But friend,’ continued the pebble, ‘in front of the rain I am powerless . . . If it pours, I’ll melt.’
It was the leaf now who thought of a solution. ‘Don’t you worry about this! As soon as it rains, I will cover you. Even the father of rains won’t be able to melt you.’ And so, both friends thought of schemes to save each other. Many a storm blew, but the pebble did not let the leaf get blown away. Many a time it rained, but the leaf did not let the stone melt. But as fate would have it, one day, the storm and the rain came together. All the schemes that the two friends had devised to save each other proved futile. The pebble said, ‘I’ll save you.’ And the leaf said, ‘I’ll save you.’
Finally, the pebble spoke up again. ‘Silly, how can you save me? You’ll be blown away with the first gust of wind! And I’ll melt anyway. Now, let’s not bother with senseless quarrel. Let me sit on you.’ And so, the leaf had to let the pebble sit on it despite its wish. The pebble positioned itself properly on the leaf. The clouds began to thunder. Lightning began to flash. Large drops of rain began to fall. Gusts of wind began to blow. The pebble began to melt. Went on melting. Till he melted completely, he continued to protect his friend. As soon as the pebble melted completely, a gust of wind came and blew the leaf away.
Tears streaming from his eyes, the leaf bid farewell to his friend with a heavy heart.
Quantitative Techniques
On Friday, 1500 people visited an ice cream parlor, out of which certain numbers of people like one or more than one ice cream out of the three types of ice creams: Vanilla, Chocolate and Strawberry while rest people didn’t like any of the three ice creams. Number of people who like only Vanilla, only Chocolate and only Strawberry are in the ratio 14:11:13, respectively. Numbers of people who like only Vanilla are seven times the number of people who like all the three types of ice creams. Numbers of people who like both Vanilla and Chocolate ice creams but not Strawberry are 50% more than the number of people who like all the three types of ice creams. Number of people who like both Strawberry and Vanilla ice creams is 165 less than the number of people who like only Chocolate ice cream. Number of people who like both Strawberry and Chocolate ice creams, but not Vanilla ice cream are five more than the number of people who like both Strawberry and Vanilla ice creams, but not Chocolate ice cream. Numbers of people who didn’t like any of the three ice creams are 50% more than the number of people who like exactly two types of ice creams.
Logical Reasoning
The all-too-familiar triad of historical periodisation — ancient, mediaeval, modern — now universal, has rather specific provincial and temporal origins. All societies evolved their own modes of dividing their history into periods: dynastic and regnal was the ones prevalent in India, Iran, and the Turko-Mongol regions, besides Europe. The creation of eras, such as Vikrami, Shaka, and Ilahi or the era of piety in Islam coinciding with the Prophet and the first four caliphs and the steady decline afterwards were among many other modes.
The triad took birth in Europe around the 16th and 17th centuries, first in the history of theology and steadily in society’s history, finding its largely evolved form in 1688 at the hands of Cellarius, a German. This was the era when over the past few centuries, Europe had been creating its new self-image of rationality, science and progress, in short, modernity; to reinforce it, the inverse image of its immediate past, the mediaeval, was also created as one of irrationality, regression, and superstition which were constituted as the synonym of religion/religiosity — in short, the “Dark Age” from which Europe was progressing into Enlightenment.
With the expansion of Europe to the rest of the world during the 18th-20th centuries, besides its trade, arms and politics, its intellectual concepts also found entry into what were becoming its colonies. The indigenous notions of historical time and space were replaced by the European triad through what Jack Goody calls “The Theft of History” in an unequal power relationship. Thus, the Dark Age of Europe was transferred to the rest of the world from which Europe must rescue it by bringing to it Enlightenment through colonialism. A very “rational” legitimation of colonialism. The triad first came to India with a further distortion; whereas in Europe, its premise was the retreat of backwardness in the face of progress, James Mill introduced it as the Hindu, the Muslim and the British periods underlining the legitimation of modern British rule which would rescue India from the dark age of mediaeval Muslim rule.
Periodisation is riven with problems. Being a human construct, rather than a ground reality, it is, by its nature, transient. Some signs of its transience have already appeared with several qualifications getting attached to it: Late Antiquity, Early Medieval, Late Medieval, and Early Modern. What shape the transience is going to take in the near or distant future is hard to predict. One wonders if our modern period will still be considered modern in the 22nd or the 23rd century. For sure, there is great regional variance in the application of the triad in the regions around the world with China taking its “mediaeval” into several centuries BCE and some such as India drawing the 18th century CE into it. Indeed, some powerful voices such as Jacques Le Goff’s have questioned the very notion of dividing history into tranches.
Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that an agreement to sell does not transfer ownership rights or confer any title on the purchaser of the property [Munishamappa versus M. Rama Reddy & Ors]. In this case, the parties had entered into an agreement to sell in 1990. However, the seller later refused to execute the sale deed, leading to a dispute. However, the primary issue before the Court was whether the agreement to sell itself was in violation of Section 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The law prohibited the registration of certain sale deeds. The parties had earlier entered into an agreement to sell certain property but deferred the execution of the sale deed due to the legal restriction under the Act. When the law was repealed later, the seller refused to execute the sale deed. This led the intending purchaser to file a suit for specific performance in 2001. The trial court in 2004 had dismissed the suit with the finding that the execution of the agreement to sell was doubtful and that the case was filed beyond the period of limitation. However, the first appellate court ruled in favour of the purchaser on both counts in 2008.
In the second appeal filed by the seller, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the agreement was in violation of Fragmentation Act and therefore, void. The matter then reached the top court in 2011. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court after it found that no issue was framed with respect to the violation of the Act by the trial court. This issue was not even pleaded in the written statement by the defendant, the top court observed. It also noted that the seller in his deposition during cross examination before the trial court, had agreed that he had signed the agreement to sell.
“Thus, in the absence of any issue framed, and given that neither party has pleaded any violation of Section 5 of the Fragmentation Act, the High Court apparently fell in error in holding that Agreement to Sell was in violation of Section 5 of the Fragmentation Act,” the Supreme Court said. The bench headed by Justice Nath further observed that since the Fragmentation Act only barred the “lease/sale/conveyance or transfer of rights”, the agreement to sell cannot be said to be barred under the law. The top court added that since the purchaser had filed the suit after the repeal of the law, the suit could have been decreed without “there being any violation to the law once the Fragmentation Act itself had been repealed in February 1991.” The top court also observed that the High Court did not hold that the suit was barred under the Limitation Act. It further noticed that the seller had received the full consideration and had also transferred the possession of the property. Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of Karnataka High Court’s decision. Consequently, it restored the decision of the first appellate court in favour of the purchaser.
Current Affairs & General Knowledge
The Framework Convention by the Council of Europe on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law is a historic step forward in the regulation of artificial intelligence across the world. This is the first treaty in the world that the United States, European Union, and the United Kingdom are about to sign-up on, a legally binding international agreement focused on ensuring that the development and use of AI do not contradict fundamental human rights as well as democratic values and the rule of law. The treaty has come in a time when deep embedding of AI systems into most sectors of governance, society, and industry has raised profound questions regarding ethics and the law as their potential impact may reach high levels.
The treaty wants to avoid disparate national approaches to AI governance. It threatens to hinder the proper progress of technology and creates inconsistency in legal protections. It is important because it takes a holistic approach to regulate AI. Its framework is based on a “risk-based framework”: therefore, AI applications need to be weighed against the risk they pose for human rights and democratic processes. Additional forms of oversight will be applied to the systems under this category which include high-risk AI systems, such as those applying to criminal justice or healthcare decisions and political decision-making processes. The treaty is obviously aimed at both government and private sector actors: each is held accountable for the ethical application of AI. Importantly, it sets up legal protection for human beings and provides them with opportunities to seek redress where AI systems violate their rights. This is precisely when AI technologies are impacting such sensitive areas as employment and law enforcement and public services where the risks of discrimination or breach of privacy are high.
The treaty drew from over 50 countries within a two-year period and reflects a kind of consensus among many nations for coordinated governance in AI. The treaty would set global standards to prevent conflicting national regulations that may ultimately reduce innovation and raise legal uncertainty. These include transparency requirements in AI development, where AI systems explain and make their decision-making processes understandable to the public. Focus on AI technologies for transparency shall contribute much in building public trust, especially on a specific area like automated decision making and algorithmic bias, which has become a growing concern.
Above all, protecting democracy from potential threats of AI is the most important goal the treaty is directed at trying to solve. With the emergent development in fears over election manipulation and public opinion control through the spread of misinformation by AI, the treaty is striving to set out avenues that ensure that the systems of AI are not adopted against democratic processes. It also focuses on accountability and clearly provides pathways for how developers and users of AI are to be held accountable for all the harm that their systems may cause. The treaty is not a full cover on how AI is used, such as national security or research in specific fields; however, it does set a strong foundation for future regulation within those areas.
Although the treaty is legally binding in nature, it does not contain punitive mechanisms, such as fines or penalties, toward ensuring that the treaty is properly enforced. Instead, compliance will be assessed regularly on good faith, and every country is expected to abide by the guidelines of the treaty. Such an approach has come under criticism because of concerns regarding the ability of the treaty to enforce complete accountability, as in many countries, enforcement mechanisms for international agreements may be a bit weakened.