Reading Comprehension -Test 22

Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.1 – Why, according to the author, did the initiatives such as increased industry-academia and finishing schools did not help to bridge the skill deficit?

(A) These steps were only superficial remedies and the problem could be answered only by reforming the entire education system.
(B) These initiatives operated on a profit-making basis rather than aiming at any serious systemic reforms.
(C) The allocation of funds to such initiatives was only one-fourth of the need,

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.2 – Which of the following suggestions have been made by the author to improve the state of education in India?

(A) Allowing the corporate organizations to enter the education sector
(B) Easy availability of loans and scholarships for making education more affordable
(C) A rating system for all the organizations to ensure quality

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.3 – According to the author, what ‘triggered a cyclone’ which saw similar views on the state of education being echoed across other sectors as well?

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.4 – Which argument does the author put forward when he compares the education sector with sectors catering to health, potable water etc.?

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.5 – What does the author mean by the phrase we are not writing on a blank page’ in the context of the passage?

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.6 – What is the author’s main objective in writing the passage?

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.7 – According to the author, which of the following was the only step taken in order to reform higher education?

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.8- Which suggestion does the author make in order to make the institutes of higher learning for technology and management capable of competing globally?

The education sector in India is in a ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much-publicized report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors and led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but Band-Aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.

Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic need, less important a right, than higher education?

While there are strong arguments for free or subsidized higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.

Well-run corporate organizations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other: different organizational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulatory framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organizations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan/scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.

The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally. However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory” framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Q.9 – Which of the following is not true in the context of the given passage?

Directions : Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q.10 – DEVIOUS

Directions : Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q.11 – MEASURES

Directions : Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q.12 – BRIDGE

Directions : Choose the word/phrase which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q.13 – PROMOTING

Directions : Choose the word/phrase which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q.14 – NOTEWORTHY

Directions : Choose the word/phrase which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q.15 – TRANSPARENT