Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
We will know which nation will capture the Cup to become champion of the world. Will it be Germany? Or will it be Argentina? Whoever wins, an absorbing theme of contesting trends has emerged from this football tournament. It’s been a contest between teams at one end that rely crucially on one outstanding player and, on the other, teams that have several good players but base their strategies on brilliantly cooperative teamwork. The two finalist nations exemplify the contrast.
Argentina is all Messi. He is the team’s superstar, the sun around which the team’s fortunes and strategies revolve. Germany is a galaxy of star players who no doubt compete among themselves as individuals when playing for their respective clubs but who evolve into a single mesmerizing mechanism when playing for the nation.
Which system works best for success depends on chance and circumstance. I suspect, however, that a singular genius of a leader may be less consistently effective for a team than an efficient machine of a system secured by cooperative teamwork. It’s not to say that Argentina can’t win. It clearly can and might again on Sunday. It’s that the breathtaking German teamwork offers better long-term odds.
Let’s explore the issue in fields wider than soccer. The current issue of The Atlantic magazine examines ‘how genius happens’ with articles on the neuroscience and behaviour patterns of creativity. Its cover features Paul McCartney and John Lennon. An essay on the two Beatles by Joshua Shenk asks: “How do we explain creativity?”
The two were individually brilliant. They had extraordinary musical sense, lyrical creativity and soaring ambition. But they were different from each other. The works of genius that flowed from their partnership came out of cooperation in contrasting styles as well as intense friendly competition.
Shenk calls it co-opetition. John seemed to live in chaos; Paul was meticulous and organized. They embodied order and disorder. The ancient Greeks, writes Shenk, gave form to these two sides of human nature in Apollo, who stood for the rational and the self-disciplined, and Dionysius, who represented the spontaneous and the emotional. Friedrich Nietzsche proposed that the interaction of the Apollonian and the Dionysian was the chief foundation of creative work and modern creativity research confirms his insight. John and Paul were not two persons when it came to their creativity. They formed a single entity called Lennon-McCartney. As solo musicians they later produced fine works separately. But their genius lay in their phase of competitive cooperation.
What if we advance the argument to the world stage, to nations, which after all are big teams at play? To make nations work with optimal efficiency, should we follow a dominant leader? Or should we strive to build a team that competes as well as cooperates within and without? Like in soccer, it depends on circumstances.
In the history of modern nation-states strong leaders, some charismatic, others plain brutal, have led in authoritarian style, sometimes to durable success but more often to grinding failure. Look at Germany. Adolf Hitler was a charismatic personality who led a defeated, floundering nation to recovered pride and success. That success, however, was short-lived and had disastrous outcomes for the world.
Germany today is a story of remarkable achievement built on a foundation of quiet cooperation and painstaking teamwork, as well as internal competition, all within a liberal democratic framework. Germany has effectively re-emerged as the leader of Europe and is one of the key leading nations of the world.
In the case of India, we saw in the 1970s an attempt by a dominant, charismatic leader to drive the nation towards glorious success. It didn’t work. The nation is too complex for a single point of leadership. It’s a team of diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic groups playing together under the broad guidelines of a liberal democratic Constitution. Each group, or sub-nation, must be allowed its space and opportunity to compete. At the same time, the central leadership must provide a framework to create numerous channels for cooperation among the playing states.
Like the singular entity of Lennon-McCartney, India must remain a partnership of different entities coming together in a spirit of competitive cooperation. It needs a Messi less than it needs a coach who would weld a team working in co-operation.
Q.1. According to the passage, In the case of India, we saw in the 1970s an attempt by a dominant, charismatic leader to___________
(A) drive the nation downward glorious success.
(B) drive the nation towards glorious success.
(C) drive the nation to make it corruption free.
(1) Only C
(2) Only B
(3) Only A and B
(4) Only B and C
(5) All A, B and C
Q.2. Which of the following statement/s is/are NOT TRUE in context to the passage?
(1) In the case of India, we saw in the 1970s an attempt by a dominant, charismatic leader to drive the nation towards glorious success.
(2) Germany today is not a story of remarkable achievement built on a foundation of quiet cooperation.
(3) Argentina is the team’s superstar, the sun around which the team’s fortunes and strategies revolve.
(4) The current issue of The Atlantic magazine examines ‘how genius happens’ with articles on the neuroscience and behaviour patterns of creativity.
(5) Adolf Hitler was a charismatic personality who led a defeated, floundering nation to recovered pride and success.
Q.3. According to the passage, Germany has effectively re-emerged as the leader of Europe and is ______
(A) one of the smart countries of the world.
(B) one of the followers of the world.
(C) one of the key leading nations of the world.
(1) Only A
(2) Only C
(3) Only B
(4) Only A and B
(5) Only A and C
Q.4. Which of the following statement/s is/are TRUE in context to the passage?
(A) In the history of modern nation-states strong leaders, some charismatic, others plain brutal, have led in authoritarian style, sometimes to durable success but more often to grinding failure.
(B) Friedrich Nietzsche proposed that the interaction of the Apollonian and the Dionysian was the chief foundation of creative work and modern creativity research confirms his insight.
(C) Germany is a galaxy of star players who no doubt compete among themselves as individuals when playing for their respective clubs.
(1) Only C
(2) Only A and C
(3) Only B and C
(4) Only A and B
(5) All A, B and C
Q.5. Which of the following is possibly the most appropriate TITLE for the passage?
(1) Competition and Co-operation
(2) How genius happens
(3) Germany and Argentina
(4) Come together and compete
(5) A liberal democratic Constitution
Q.6-8. Choose the word/group of words is most SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
Q.6. CAPTURE
(1) Relieve (2) Catch (3) Reassure (4) comment (5) Liberalization
Q.7. SPONTANEOUS
(1) Impulsive (2) Regret (3) Gregarious (4) Energetic (5) Impure
Q.8. MESMERIZING
(1) Distributing (2) Memorising (3) attract (4) Captivate (5) Disgust
Q.9-10. Choose the word/group of words is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
Q.9. COMPETES
(1) Struggle (2) Surrender (3) Contest (4) destroy (5) save
Q.10. EVOLVE
(1) Emerge (2) Support (3) Diminish (4) Carnage (5) Establish
ANSWER
1. (2) 2. (2) 3. (2) 4. (5) 5. (4) 6. (2) 7. (1) 8. (4) 9. (2) 10. (3)
0 comments:
Post a Comment
MAHENDRA GURU