iQuanta has launched a Mini Mock Series covering all the sections of the CLAT exam, these questions have been handpicked by our faculty based on the latest CLAT exam pattern.
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
Each set of questions in this section is based on a single passage. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.
The summit of the 21-member APEC in San Francisco was recently conducted which overshadowed by a bilateral meeting. US president Joe Biden had his second face-to-face meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. The strategic rivalry between the countries, which initially played out in the form of trade war, took a more serious turn last year when the US rolled out export control policies on semiconductors and AI. In addition, the US and China are backing rivals in the geopolitical conflicts that have broken out over the last two years.
The trajectory of the trade war offers a sense of their limitations and also ways to manage the rivalry without slipping into direct conflict. It’s been five years since the US began to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, which covered over 60% of imports from the country. Consequently, China’s share in the US imports declined by over 5 percentage points to 16.3% in 2022. Once the focus is broadened to look beyond bilateral trade to supply chains, the picture is different. A World Bank paper last month did just that and found a compression in the US-China direct trade linkage was offset by indirect linkages.
The decline in China’s share of US imports was filled by a handful of other countries, notably Vietnam. The spurt in exports of these countries was, in turn, related to their deep links to China through supply chains. Their increased exports to the US were accompanied by larger imports from China. As WTO pointed out, we have seen trade fragmentation linked to geopolitics but not broader de-globalisation. The US-China rivalry has some inbuilt checks because neither side can extricate itself from a trade relationship built on complex supply chains. It’s noteworthy that Australian PM Anthony Albanese this month visited China with trade on the top of the agenda. The small impact of America’s Russia sanctions and other supply chain readjustments show that economic realities impose limitations on countries that aim to realise geopolitical goals through economic tools. The upside of this is that the US and China have an incentive to coordinate efforts to end hostilities in different theatres. There’s a lesson for India, which is rightly trying to capitalise on the trade fragmentation arising out of the US-China geopolitical rivalry. The biggest gainers so far have been countries that are part of deep supply chains.
Quantitative Techniques
Logical Reasoning
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.
Senior climate change experts from India and Bangladesh have emphasized the importance of obtaining financial support from developed nations. They also advocate for the exploration of innovative funding sources to address the climate-related loss and damage in the Sunderbans. These experts concur that a combined India-Bangladesh stakeholder narrative on the Sunderban’s climate-induced loss and damage at global events, such as the upcoming COP 28 in Dubai, is essential for garnering this support.
The Sunderbans, a UNESCO World Heritage site divided between West Bengal in India and Bangladesh, impacts approximately eight million people spanning both nations. A significant portion of this population has already experienced the adverse effects of climate change multiple times. This not only affects the people but also the unique ecosystem of the region, which includes the iconic Bengal tigers.
The Sunderbans is recognized as a global climate hotspot, experiencing a myriad of climate-related challenges. These include an increasing frequency of high-intensity cyclones, a sea-level rise rate that is roughly double the global average, and spikes in short-term rainfall and temperature.
The climate-induced loss and damage in the Sunderbans gained attention after the establishment of a global loss and damage fund during COP 27 last year at Sharm El Sheikh. This initiative is anticipated to gain further momentum in COP 28. A recent meeting was organized by the Bangladesh deputy high commission in Kolkata and the Environment Governed Integrated Organisation (EnGIO). Attendees included Saber Hossain Chowdhury, special envoy to Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on climate change, and other notable figures.
Harjeet Singh, affiliated with the Climate Action Network International and a member of the UN loss and damage transitional committee, acknowledged that despite the Sunderbans’ high vulnerability, its climate challenges are not sufficiently recognized on the global stage. Singh emphasized the region’s entitlement to loss and damage support. He also highlighted the slow progress of discussions within the UN loss and damage transitional committee, noting that some developed countries are obstructing the formation of a loss and damage fund structure. Ecological economist Nilanjan Ghosh emphasized that while securing financial aid from developed nations is crucial, it’s equally important to explore broader sources of funding. He suggests innovative methods such as linking it to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to address the loss and damage in the Sunderbans.
Legal Reasoning
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.
In contract law, a counter offer plays a crucial role in the negotiation process, functioning as a response to an initial offer that introduces new terms or modifications. When a counter offer is made, it effectively nullifies the original offer and presents a new proposal for consideration. This shift in the dynamics of the agreement means that the roles of offeror and offeree are reversed: the original offeree becomes the offeror, and the original offeror becomes the offeree. The principles that govern offers equally apply to counter offers, ensuring that they must be clear, definite, and communicated effectively to the other party.
A counter offer must be distinguished from mere inquiries or requests for clarification. Asking for more information or seeking clarity on specific terms of the original offer does not constitute a counter offer and does not void the initial proposal. For instance, if Party A offers to sell a car to Party B for $10,000, and Party B asks whether the price includes a warranty, Party B is not making a counter offer but merely seeking additional information. Conversely, if Party B responds by stating they are willing to pay $9,000 instead, this response is a counter offer as it alters the terms of the initial offer.
Acceptance of a counter offer by the original offeror creates a binding contract under the new terms set forth in the counter offer. This acceptance must meet the same criteria as any contract acceptance: it must be unequivocal and communicated to the other party. Once the counter offer is accepted, the contractual agreement is established, and both parties are bound by its terms. The acceptance of the counter offer thus creates a new contractual relationship, distinct from the one proposed in the original offer.
The issuance of a counter offer also has the effect of absolving the enforceability of the original offer. Once a counter offer is made, the original offer cannot be accepted unless it is reinstated by the original offeror. This legal principle ensures that the negotiation process is clear and that parties are not simultaneously bound by multiple conflicting offers. For example, if Party A offers to sell their car for $10,000, and Party B counters with an offer of $9,000, Party A is no longer obligated to sell the car for $10,000. Party A can either accept the $9,000 offer, reject it, or propose a further counter offer.
This process of making and responding to counter offers is integral to contract negotiations, allowing parties to refine and agree upon the terms that best suit their needs and interests. It reflects the fluid nature of contractual agreements, where initial offers serve as starting points for discussions rather than final terms. The counter offer mechanism ensures that all parties have the opportunity to negotiate terms that are mutually acceptable and legally binding.
In summary, a counter offer is a powerful tool in contract negotiations, transforming the landscape of the initial offer and creating a new proposal for consideration. It reverses the roles of offeror and offeree, applying the principles of offers to ensure clarity and mutual consent. Distinguishing between requests for clarification and counter offers is crucial, as only the latter nullifies the original offer and sets the stage for a new binding agreement upon acceptance. The counter offer process not only facilitates the negotiation of mutually beneficial terms but also underscores the dynamic and iterative nature of contractual agreements, ensuring that the final contract reflects the genuine intentions and agreements of the parties involved.
Current Affairs & General Knowledge
Claiming that the existing anti-terror laws are insufficient, the Maharashtra government last week tabled the Special Public Security Bill, 2024, to tackle “urban Naxalism.” The Bill empowers the state to criminalise “unlawful activity” by individuals and prescribes stringent punishments against organisations it deems unlawful. While this is precisely the remit of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1976, the principle anti-terror legislation, the framers of the Maharashtra Bill deem it inadequate. While the processes are the same as UAPA, the Bill expands its definition of unlawful activity, bringing under its ambit everything from “being a menace to public order” and “interfering with administration of law,” to “generating fear and apprehension in public” and “preaching disobedience of law.” These descriptions are so loosely worded and vague that they could include legitimate dissent, protest or even mere criticism of the government. This is why Maharashtra’s new legislation is disquieting.
The proposed law brings “urban Naxals,” the term that has a political provenance, and one that has been used, controversially, to target students, writers, activists, into the legal vocabulary. In its Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Bill says that the “menace of Naxalism is not limited to remote areas of the Naxal affected states but its presence is increasing in the urban areas.” Its wide provisions seek to equate it with anything that raises questions about the government. It is alarming that a bill that empowers the government to evict the accused from premises and seize bank accounts even before a trial can begin, does not make vital distinctions, like between an active member of an organisation and someone associated with it. The courts have consistently called for a higher bar for the state to invoke stringent laws. The Delhi High Court, in the 2019 Delhi riots case, said that “the more stringent a penal provision, the more strictly it must be construed”. “The extent and reach of terrorist activity must travel beyond the effect of an ordinary crime and must not arise merely by causing disturbance of law and order or even public order; and must be such that it travels beyond the capacity of the ordinary law enforcement agencies to deal with it under the ordinary penal law,” the HC said. In the 2019 Bhima Koregaon cases, the SC has in the last two years granted bail to several accused. The “mere possession of the literature, even if the content thereof inspires or propagates violence, by itself cannot constitute any of the offences within Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 (UAPA) Act…”, the SC said.Top of Form Bottom of FormThe Maharashtra Bill threatens to undercut the constitutional pact between the state and the citizen that protects, not just permits, dissent and debate. A day after the Bill was tabled, the monsoon session of the assembly was prorogued. Given that the state goes to polls in November, the Bill has effectively lapsed. The proposed law must not be revived.
Enroll for CLAT Online Coaching by iQuanta