Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? According to the writer the responsibility of explaining the facts about India to Europeans rests with?

Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? According to the writer the responsibility of explaining the facts about India to Europeans rests with? Correct Answer Indians

Related Questions

Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? What wrong with respect to India are the Europeans responsible for?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives and click the button corresponding to it.
Ants have been living on the earth for more than 100 million years and can be found almost anywhere on the planet. It is estimated that there are about 20000 different species of ants. For this reason ants have been called Earth's most successful species. If you watch ants for any length of time you will see that they really do communicate with each other and very effectively too. Ants communicate by touching each other with their antennae. Ants also use chemicals called pheromones to leave scent trails for other ants to follow. Ants build many different types of homes. Many ants build simple little mounds out of dirt or sand. Other ants use small sticks mixed with dirt and sand to make a stronger mound that offers protection from rain. Western Harvester ants make a small mound on top, but then tunnels up to 15 feet straight down to hibernate during winter. Ant mounds consist of many chambers connected by tunnels. Different chambers are used for nurseries, food storage, and resting places for the worker ants. Some ants live in wood like termites. Army ants don't make a home at all but travel in a large groups searching for food. Ants are social insects which means they live in large colonies or groups. Some colonies consist of millions of ants. There are three types of ants in each species, the queen, the sterile female workers and males. The male ants only serve one purpose, to mate with future queen ants and do not live very long. The queen grows to adulthood, mates, and then spends rest of her life laying eggs. A colony may have only one queen, or there may be many queens depending on the species. Ants go through four stages of development: egg, larva, pupa and adult.
Why are ants called the 'Earth's' most successful species?
Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given four alternatives. By practicing mindfulness and other principles, we become more aware of and present to our fears and others fears, bearing witness as a way of healing andempowering. We see the spiritual path as intertwined with the path of social action, with contemplation and action parts of the same whole, each nourishing andguiding the other. Acknowledging that our well-being depends on others makes caring for others well-being a moral responsibility.
Through a “mindful citizen” exercise, we create a story articulating who we are as individuals who are also part of communities. This exercise helps us move beyond cynicism, complacency, and despair, instead infusing us with a sense of purpose. We embrace our gifts, resolving to do our part to promote a sense of common humanity as a means toward social justice.
With this exercise, I believe we can help students bridge their divides and replace anger and distrust with compassionate connections – just as I witnessed betweenShirley and Tiffany.
Shirley returned to class after a brief hiatus, keeping a cool distance from Tiffany. But over the weeks spent together they gradually came to know each other. They practiced seeing and listening, sharing stories so different that they felt bewildered as to how they could overcome the gap. But they found that acknowledging their
differences led them to discover a place of deep connection in commonalities, such as being raised by grandmothers, and even wounds, including childhood trauma,that they never imagined existed.
In assessments of these classes, students say that these small groups become “healing communities,” where we overcome victimization and claim agency. Healingoccurs as we transcend an “us vs. them” mentality, crossing borders and forging connections. These communities show a way of reducing intergroup prejudice andfostering inclusion based in psychology research and pedagogical practice. What makes the others well-being a moral responsibility for us?