[itsromiljain]

Intense RC - 1

1.D
2.C
3.E
4.A



Romil Jain

[Indhira]

Intense RC-1

D. Both carry similar poignant impressions about the past.
E. Trend and Figure of speech
D. To prove that Turks have played a significant role in German history.
A. Advocate understanding “Turkish” and “German” as historically loaded labels.

RC-33:

(A)
(C)
(A)
(C)
(B)
(E)
(D)

[aryan007]

Rc-33

a
c
b
b
c
d
d

[aryan007]

OA Intense RC-1

1. d)
Refer to the lines in para 5 “Focusing on this key issue, Adelson
emphasizes the common ground that Germans and Turks
share. In contexts like these, according to Adelson, Germans
and Turks produce “touching tales”, and thereby reveal their
overwhelming similarities”, which reveal that both carry similar
painful impressions about the past.

2. c)
Novum refers to the game of dice - so Game is closest. Trope
is a figure of speech. Hence option 3

3. c)
Option 3 is the correct representation of the primary purpose
as Adelson wants to show that the cultures touch. 1 is too
narrow. 2 confines itself to literature. 4 is correct but it is not
the primary purpose. Instead it is a reason leading to the
primary purpose. 5 is correct but part of the whole. It is part of
option 3.

4. a)
Refer to the line in the first paragraph “Adelson adamantly
advocates for understanding “Turkish” and “German” less as
historically loaded labels and more as the names of two living
cultures that exist essentially inside one another” which leads
to option 1.

[sayanddude]

Hi puys!! Here`s one from my side (though not so intense):---

T o confront a mind that radically alters our perception of the world is one of life's most unsettling yet liberating experiences. Unsettling because it can undercut carefully constructed rationales, liberating because at last the obvious is seen for what it is. However troubling reality may be, human dignity is not affirmed in fleeing it. Rather, dignity lies in seeing reality for what it is - and acting responsibly in the face of it. In all American history, no one's writings are more unsettling than Noam Chomsky's. He is among our greatest dissenters. No intellectual tradition quite captures his voice; thinking within traditions is anathema to him. No party claims him; he is a spokesman for no ideology. His position is not a liberalism become radical, or a conservatism in revolt against the betrayal of claimed principles. It is an indication of the radical nature of his dissent that it fits nowhere.

Such a radical stance is hard to sustain. Even our most famous dissenters have often turned back from what they saw. Their insights became too painful. Many lapsed into despair, lamenting as did Mark Twain the follies of human nature, or as did Henry Adams the failure of the American promise. But Chomsky does not turn back. He relentlessly pursues what he sees. No one has exposed more forcefully the self-righteous beliefs on which America's imperial role is based, or delineated more effectively the appalling actions which maintain it. No one has focused more compellingly on the violence of our world, or conveyed more directly the responsibility of the United States for much of it. Few have so carefully dissected how America's acclaimed freedoms mask its irresponsible power and unjustified privilege.

Chomsky's insights, though forbidding in their intensity, bring that sense of relief that comes when someone speaks the truth directly. That relief was palpable among Chomsky's readers in the 1960s and 1970s when the war raged in Vietnam. Bluntly, unsparingly, he marshalled the evidence and described the brutal realities of the war - American aggression, genocide, war crimes, mass murder. He showed us how these realities were carefully homogenized and sanitized on the evening news to make them acceptable to the powers that be. And he asked why this was so. His answer is shocking at first: there is a pervasive, omnipresent ideological process of indoctrination that permeates American life, makes us immune to the suffering all around us, and blinds us to what is all too obvious. In these writings, Chomsky explores logically and methodically how the process works. As he looks at its workings in Vietnam, Central America, and the Middle East, he makes us confront the way in which the very foundations of American civilization and its economic life are at war with the prospects for human dignity and freedom - here and abroad.

His tenacity is extraordinary. It is there in the skilfully crafted logical character of his writings, the careful gathering of evidence, the undiminished ardour over the years to expose the mystifications so continually used to conceal the truth. It is there as well in his outpouring of writings for even the smallest journals, in his determination through countless speaking engagements to reach any audience willing to listen. In the early days of the antiwar movement, Chomsky willingly came and spoke with just a handful of people, with students in all disciplines - from physics to Asian studies - urging them to use their minds and not just their bodies to oppose the war; to not have illusions about America's aggression in Vietnam, or the long-term character of the struggle to end it; to not seek easy alternative faiths in other countries: not in Castro's Cuba, or Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, or Mao's China.
Today Chomsky draws large audiences of college students never exposed to his writings about Vietnam. But his impact is comparable: his direct portrayal of U.S. policy around the world communicates a sense that people can see if they care to, if they step back just long enough to question the ideological milieu which shapes them. Now as then, his is not the counsel of despair. True, Chomsky does not believe that the truth by itself will simply win out, given the realities of power he describes. But he refuses to turn from analyzing the reasons for the evils and horrors of our time, for they are neither unknowable nor intractable. They are all too understandable. Otherwise so many efforts would not be undertaken to deflect such realities, much as the psyche deflects painful truths deeply known within, but for that reason consciously denied all the more fervently as irrelevant.

1. The analogy of the mind is drawn to show that

(1) certain unpalatable truths are best left alone.
(2) truth has little chance to win in the confrontation with the evil and horrors of our time.
(3) there is no point in analyzing the motives behind evil deeds.
(4) the shortcomings in the American system can and must be confronted, if they are to be dealt with.
(5) American people are so thoroughly indoctrinated that there is little hope for the country.

2. Chomsky's analysis of America's role in wars overseas showed that

(1) State actions and ideologies contradict the core values of the American society.
(2) war news is homogenized and sanitized' to spare the American people the pains of reality.
(3) the powers that be want to hide behind euphemisms and ideologies.
(4) people feel relieved when someone else utters the truths that they have not the courage to utter.
(5) in the face of heavy odds, the country still stands for the ideologies formulated at its inception.

3. Chomsky is distinct from the other American writers in that

(1) he revealed the ugly face of America behind the freedom mask.
(2) even as he brings to light shocking truths about his country, he does not succumb to pessimism.
(3) his radicalism is tinged by remorse.
(4) he believed America used its powers irresponsibly and enjoyed its privileges guiltlessly.
(5) he was not shocked by the ugly realities on which he focused.

4. All of the following are true, as per the passage, EXCEPT:

(1) Chomsky's writings change our view of reality.
(2) We are disturbed when our traditionally accepted reasoning is challenged.
(3) Chomsky is not untouched by the ideology and traditions of his time.
(4) To see reality for what it is, is a liberating experience.
(5) To be able to see reality and respond to it sensibly enhances human dignity.

[aryan007]

IRC-2

Using art to condemn the moral shortcomings of society is nothing new. English artist William Hogarth (1697—1764) was renowned for prints that revealed the moral lapses of eighteenth-century England. Despite the fact that Hogarth enjoyed the patronage of England’s wealthier citizens, he did not shrink away from producing scathing depictions of all levels of English society.

In the ten-print series Industry and Idleness, Hogarth presents two apprentices who begin working side by side only to arrive at vastly different ends. The first apprentice is portrayed as a morally incorruptible, diligent worker.He is promoted, marries his boss’s daughter, and achieves great distinction and financial success. The other apprentice does little work and engages in many unsavory activities.He is fired from his apprenticeship and continues down a path of illicit behavior and corruption. The series comes to a climax when the two former coworkers are reunited with the industrious apprentice—now elevated to alderman—standing in judgment of the idle coworker brought before him for murder. The idle apprentice is sentenced to death and executed, whereas the industrious apprentice goes on to become Lord Mayor of London.

Among Hogarth’s most popular series was The Rake’s Progress, which tells the story of wealthy Tom Rakewell. In the first of eight prints, Tom inherits a large sum of money that he foolishly spends on enhancing his image and prestige in superficial ways.His prodigal ways lead to his rapid decline as he is arrested for debt and in return marries an old maid for her money.He begins gambling, is imprisoned, and eventually goes insane in Bedlam. Tom’s descent and desperate outcome, like many of Hogarth’s subjects, is tied directly to moral corruption and poor self-discipline.

It is interesting that Hogarth’s prints were extremely popular in his day.Whatever the moral
shortcomings of eighteenth-century England, its citizens welcomed Hogarth’s social critiques and harsh judgments.

1. According to the passage, Hogarth’s prints
A. portrayed many different kinds of moral corruption.
B. focused on the weak and disenfranchised.
C. were extremely controversial.
D. often offended his wealthy patrons.
E. are extremely valuable today.


2. The passage suggests that Hogarth’s work is important because
A. Hogarth developed the technique of story-telling through prints.
B. Hogarth defied authorities and convention by depicting the life of common criminals.
C. it reveals the hardships of life in eighteenth-century England.
D. it provides a critical view of the moral shortcomings of Hogarth’s society.
E. it demonstrates that art is an important medium for social change.

3. The description of Industry and Idleness suggests that
A. people in eighteenth-century England were too quick to judge each other.
B. the moral choices people make determine whether they will succeed or fail.
C. apprentices often engaged in immoral behavior in Hogarth’s time.
D. successful politicians are morally incorruptible.
E. the moral apprentice feels sorry for his former coworker

4. Based on the passage, which of the following best expresses the main lesson of Hogarth’s work?
A. If you are diligent and industrious, you will achieve great distinction.
B. Wealth leads to moral corruption.
C. Do not judge others until you have walked in their shoes.
D. Some people are born immoral and cannot be changed.
E. Wise choices and self-discipline can keep us from moral lapses.

[|e0]

Originally Posted by aryan007

irc-2

1 ) a
2 ) d
3 ) b
4 ) e

[aryan007]

sanddude's RC

4
3
2
3

[|e0]

Originally Posted by sayanddude

hi puys!! Here`s one from my side (though not so intense):---

1 ) 4
2 ) 3
3 ) 2
4 ) 3

[scorpionsudhir]

IRC-2

My Take:

1.A
2.D
3.B
4.E