Unbound by human owners and the constraints of petdom, they live the doggiest of dog lives: they

sleep when they want, mingle with friends they choose, pee when the urge hits, and eat when hungry –
as long as food can be found. Wandering the streets of Chennai in southern India, we saw them
dozing alone or in company on pavements, seeking shelter from the heat under a van, watching
children playing on the beach, or being cared for by local residents. Part of Indian street life, these
free-living dogs stand in stark contrast to the culture of pet ownership found in the West. Not only do
they defy the image of the out-of-control and marauding canine stalking the sensationalist articles of
19th-century newspapers in Western Europe and North America, they ask us to question our sanitised
cities and stewardship of a world with nature at so much risk.

India’s robust street dogs also challenge the supposed superiority of pedigree that dominates dog
breeding today. One of us recently adopted a street dog from Romania. Bell Kanmani was brought to
the United Kingdom by one of the many charities picking up street dogs there and finding them new
homes abroad. While walking her in the UK, Bell Kanmani’s human is regularly confronted with the
question ‘What breed is your dog?’ The response that she is just a ‘dog’ only serves to prompt further
speculation about what mix of breeds she might be: everything from a collie to a Jack Russell. Having
grown up in India, Kanmani’s human finds strange, and rather disturbing, this idea of dogs as
necessarily belonging to a particular breed or mixture of breeds. She is familiar with dogs who have
lineages free of any human breeding, not necessarily belonging to humans or doing what humans
command them to. These unowned and breed-free dogs are now often known as street or village
dogs, or – our preferred term – free-living dogs

Too often in the West, dogs are seen through the prism of pedigree, and connected to their owner via
collars and leashes. All too often, the realities of how dogs and humans live together in the Global
South are overlooked. As a country with a significant street-dog population, India is a good place from
which to explore how humans and canines share street life in cooperative ways that move beyond
images of free-living dogs as dangerous.

1. Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage?

a) The author is in favor of culling street dogs in India.
b) The author is against the idea of dog breeds and pedigree.
c) The author is an expert on dog behavior and psychology.
d) The author is a resident of Chennai and owns a street dog.
Answer: b
Explaination
Nowhere in the passage is it mentioned that culling is considered, thereby allowing us to
eliminate option a. Additionally, there is no indication of the author's expertise, leading us to
eliminate option c. While the author does mention street dogs in Chennai, it does not
necessarily imply that they are a resident of Chennai or own a street dog, eliminating option
d as well. In the second paragraph, the author discusses how the dominance of pedigree
shapes dog breeding today, and in the third paragraph, they highlight the overlooked
realities of dogs and humans living together in the Global South when viewed through the
lens of pedigree. Therefore, it can be inferred that the author opposes the concept of dog
breeds and pedigrees.

2. which of the following statements is an assumption made by the author in the

passage?
 a) Street dogs in India are free-living and robust
b) Street dogs in Romania are similar to street dogs in India.
c) Street dogs in the West are out-of-control and marauding.
d) Street dogs in the Global South are cooperative and friendly.
Answer: c
Explanation
The first paragraph mentions that “Not only do they defy the image of the
out-of-control and marauding canine stalking the sensationalist articles of
19th-century newspapers in Western Europe and North America.” This
statement implies that the idea of street dogs in the West being out-of-
control and marauding is being refuted. Therefore, based on this information,
it can be inferred that option C, which suggests that "Street dogs in the West
are out-of-control and marauding," is the correct answer.

3. Which of the following statements weakens the author’s argument in the

passage?
a) There are many cases of street dogs attacking humans and other animals
in India.
b) There are many benefits of owning a pet dog for human health and well-
being.
c) There are many challenges of adopting a street dog from a foreign country.
d) There are many variations of dog breeds and mixes across the world.
Answer: a
EXPLAINATION
The author's main argument, as stated in the last line, revolves around the idea that India
provides a valuable context to examine the cooperative ways in which humans and canines
share street life, moving beyond the perception of free-roaming dogs as dangerous. Option
a, which suggests that "There are many cases of street dogs attacking humans and other
animals in India," weakens the author's argument. Therefore, it can be concluded that option
a is the correct answer as it contradicts the author's main point.

4. Which of the following statements is an example of the author’s bias in the

passage?
a) The author prefers the term free-living dogs over street or village dogs.
b) The author questions the culture of pet ownership found in the West.
c) The author adopts a street dog from Romania and names her Bell Kanmani.
d) The author finds strange and disturbing the idea of dogs as belonging to a
particular breed or mixture of breeds.
Answer: d
 Explanation
The central theme of the passage focuses on dog breeds, their mixture, and the concept of
pedigree. The author highlights how the dominance of pedigree shapes dog breeding and finds
it peculiar and unsettling that dogs are associated with specific breeds or mixtures of breeds. The
presence of street dogs, which are unowned and not bound by specific breeds, further reinforces
the author's perspective. Therefore, option d is indeed the correct answer as it aligns with the
main idea expressed by the author.

5. Which of the following statements is a fact supported by the passage?

a) The author grew up in India and is familiar with free-living dogs.

b) The author saw free-living dogs dozing on pavements and seeking shelter
under a van in Chennai.

c) Bell Kanmani is a dog of a very high breed.

d) The author believes that free-living dogs challenge the supposed

superiority of pedigree that dominates dog breeding.

Answer: b

Explanation

Option b is mentioned explicitly in the first paragraph of the passage. There is no

evidence or support in the passage for option a. Option c is factually incorrect, as
stated in the second paragraph. While the author does mention that the superiority
of pedigree dominates dog breeding, there is no mention of free-living dogs
challenging it, making option d incorrect as well. Therefore, based on the information
provided, the correct answer is indeed option b.

PASSAGE 2

There is nothing outside the text,’ wrote Jacques Derrida in 1967. Like
most everything Derrida said, this notorious declaration becomes more
difficult to interpret as one examines its context and the context of its
context. But it aptly captures the flavour of academic philosophy at the
time it appeared, which was also the year of Richard
Rorty’s anthology The Linguistic Turn, which embodied an argument that
the most important philosophy of the 20th century was linguistic
philosophy. By then, everyone but a few reactionaries would have agreed
with that assessment. Philosophy had for decades been relentlessly
emphasising the nature of language (as opposed to, for example, the nature
of reality, goodness or beauty). There was some dispute about whether
there could be any genuine philosophical questions that were not questions
about language.

Looking back on it from here, the convergence on questions of language –

indeed, the relentless, almost-exclusive focus on it as central to our
experience, by thinkers otherwise so different that they could not or did
not care to enter into dialogue – seems remarkable. It is one of the signal
aspects of 20th-century intellectual history and a useful lens through which
to view the development of philosophy during that time.

In the 20th century, Western philosophy split into two discourses, each

with its own canon and jargon, usually referred to as ‘analytic’ and
‘continental’. Mastering them simultaneously (getting a solid handle on
both Martin Heidegger and Bertrand Russell, for example, or both Willard
Van Orman Quine and Michel Foucault), was a very intimidating prospect,
and few had the motivation. Almost certainly, if one was housed, one was
housed in a department that did only one or the other. And almost
certainly, whichever side the department was on, it was abusive toward the
other. Analysts held that continental philosophy was not philosophy at all,
but meaningless yet relativistic babble, something of substantially less
than no value. Continentalists characterised analytic philosophy as useless
punctilious logic-chopping and scientism for its own sake, with no
possibility of cultural critique or even meaningful connection to human
life as it is actually conducted.

It is not surprising, however, that the lines of discourse had more in

common than the participants in the ridicule thought they did. Analytic
and continental philosophy emerged at the same time in the Western
academy, out of a shared intellectual history (the rationalists, empiricists
and idealists, among others). The rivalry was as professional as it was
conceptual, and the contest was always to see which side could get rid of
the others’ professors. But in a thousand ways through the whole century,
they were embedded in the same zeitgeist. They had a lot of the same
obsessions, as well as a lot of the same drawbacks, even if, by 1967, they
also had entirely different vocabularies.
Based on the information provided in the passage, what can be inferred about the relationship
between analytic and continental philosophy?

A) They had completely different intellectual origins.

B) They shared common philosophical goals and perspectives.

C) They were engaged in constant collaboration and dialogue.

D) They held mutually exclusive viewpoints on the nature of language.

Answer: B)

Explanation: The passage states that analytic and continental philosophy emerged from a shared
intellectual history and were embedded in the same zeitgeist. While they had a rivalry and
different vocabularies, they also had a lot of the same obsessions. This implies that they shared
common philosophical goals and perspectives, which can be inferred from the passage.

2. Which of the following statements, if true, would strengthen the argument that
language was the primary focus of philosophy in the early 20th century?

A) Many prominent philosophers of the time published influential works on linguistic

philosophy.

B) Linguistic philosophy was the only branch of philosophy studied during that
period.

C) The study of language in philosophy led to significant advancements in other

academic disciplines.

D) The majority of philosophers in the early 20th century had a background in

linguistics.

Answer: A)

Explanation: The argument states that language was the primary focus of philosophy
in the early 20th century. Option A strengthens this argument by indicating that
many prominent philosophers during that time published influential works
specifically on linguistic philosophy. This suggests that language indeed had a
significant presence and emphasis within the field of philosophy during that period.
3. Which of the following statements, if true, would weaken the argument that
analytic and continental philosophy had a shared intellectual history?

A) Analytic philosophy developed independently in response to continental

philosophy.

B) The philosophers associated with analytic and continental philosophy had no

interactions or exchanges of ideas.

C) The vocabulary used in analytic and continental philosophy was completely

distinct and unrelated.

D) Analytic philosophy focused primarily on language, while continental philosophy

focused on other aspects of philosophy.

Answer: A)

Explanation: The argument states that analytic and continental philosophy had a
shared intellectual history. Option A weakens this argument by suggesting that
analytic philosophy developed independently in response to continental philosophy.
If this is true, it indicates that the two branches of philosophy did not have a shared
intellectual history but rather emerged as separate and distinct approaches.

4.Which of the following can be concluded based on the information provided in the
passage?

A) The focus on language in philosophy declined significantly in the late 20th

century.

B) Analytic and continental philosophy are incompatible and cannot be studied

together.

C) The emphasis on language in philosophy led to significant advancements in other

academic disciplines.

D) The rivalry between analytic and continental philosophy had a negative impact on
the development of philosophy.

Answer: C)

Explanation: The passage discusses the emphasis on language in philosophy during

the 20th century. While the passage does not provide direct evidence to support
option C, it mentions that philosophy relentlessly emphasized the nature of language
and that language was central to our experience. Based on this information, it can be
reasonably concluded that the emphasis on language in philosophy had an impact
on other academic disciplines and potentially led to significant advancements in
those fields.

.5Which of the following assumptions can be made based on the passage?

a) Jacques Derrida's declaration about there being nothing outside the text was
universally accepted and agreed upon by all philosophers.

b) The convergence on questions of language in 20th-century philosophy was a

result of the influence of Richard Rorty's anthology.

c) The rivalry between analytic and continental philosophy was solely based on
professional and conceptual differences.

d) The focus on language in philosophy overshadowed the exploration of other

philosophical topics such as reality, goodness, or beauty.

Answer: d)

Explanation: The passage discusses the relentless emphasis on language in 20th-

century philosophy, with a convergence of thinkers focusing on it as central to the
philosophical discourse. This suggests that there was a neglect or overshadowing of
other philosophical topics. While the passage provides information about the
emphasis on language, it does not explicitly mention the exploration of other
philosophical topics being overshadowed. However, it can be assumed based on the
information presented in the passage that the focus on language led to a diminished
exploration of other philosophical aspects, making option d) the correct