Comprehension Based Questions for CLAT and LSAT
The CLAT pattern has changed completely. Gone are the days of short memory-based questions. It has been hinted by Prof Mustafa on his youtube channel that the new pattern will judge the students on their aptitude and not memory. There will be only comprehension based questions in CLAT.
He also said that all the questions will be comprehension based.
What does that mean?
It means that in place of a question straight away asking you the synonym of a certain word, you get to read a paragraph, understand it and then infer the meaning of the certain word from its use in the said paragraph.
All the questions based on comprehension mean that the students have about six months to work on their speed reading. It also means that they need to read as much politics, business, art and history as they can because the text in the comprehension will most probably be from one of these categories.
It was important to read before but now it is empirical to read in order to crack this test. If you are a slow reader, your odds of qualifying took a huge hit. In order to be back into the game, you better start reading and solving more and more comprehensions.
There are a few law entrance examinations that have always stressed more on comprehension than the Common Law Admission Test. One of such law entrance is LSAT or Law School Admission Test. It has always been more inclined towards comprehension based questions.
Unlike CLAT, it always had a separate reading comprehension section of about 25 questions.
In order to be prepared for the huge number of comprehension based questions for CLAT 2020, it is advised to practice questions from the LSAT paper.
Practice the below paper to solve the comprehension based questions in CLAT.
Passage 1
The painter Roy Lichtenstein helped to define pop art—the movement that incorporated commonplace objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings—by paraphrasing the style of comic books in his work. His merger of a popular genre with the forms and intentions of fine art generated a complex result: while poking fun at the pretensions of the art world, Lichtenstein’s work also managed to convey a seriousness of theme that enabled it to transcend mere parody.
That Lichtenstein’s images were fine art was at first difficult to see, because, with their word balloons and highly stylized figures, they looked like nothing more than the comic book panels from which they were copied. Standard art history holds that pop art emerged as an impersonal alternative to the histrionics of abstract expressionism, a movement in which painters conveyed their private attitudes and emotions using nonrepresentational techniques. The truth is that by the time pop art first appeared in the early 1960s, abstract expressionism had already lost much of its force. Pop art painters weren’t quarreling with the powerful early abstract expressionist work of the late 1940s but with a second generation of abstract expressionists whose work seemed airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical. Pop art paintings were full of simple black lines and large areas of primary color. Lichtenstein’s work was part of a general rebellion against the fading emotional power of abstract expressionism, rather than an aloof attempt to ignore it.
But if rebellion against previous art by means of the careful imitation of a popular genre were all that characterized Lichtenstein’s work, it would possess only the reflective power that parodies have in relation to their subjects. Beneath its cartoonish methods, his work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to say that what was missing from contemporary painting was the depiction of contemporary life. The stilted romances and war stories portrayed in the comic books on which he based his canvases, the stylized automobiles, hot dogs, and table lamps that appeared in his pictures, were reflections of the culture Lichtenstein inhabited. But, in contrast to some pop art, Lichtenstein’s work exuded not a jaded cynicism about consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naiveté, intended as a response to the excess of sophistication he observed not only in the later abstract expressionists but in some other pop artists. With the comics—typically the domain of youth and innocence—as his reference point, a nostalgia fills his paintings that gives them, for all their surface bravado, an inner sweetness. His persistent use of comic-art conventions demonstrates a faith in reconciliation, not only between cartoons and fine art, but between parody and true feeling.
Question 1
Which one of the following best captures the author’s attitude toward Lichtenstein’s work?
- enthusiasm for its more rebellious aspects
- respect for its successful parody of youth and innocence
- pleasure in its blatant rejection of abstract expressionism
- admiration for its subtle critique of contemporary culture
- appreciation for its ability to incorporate both realism and naiveté
Question 2
The author most likely lists some of the themes and objects influencing and appearing in Lichtenstein’s paintings (middle of the last paragraph) primarily to
- show that the paintings depict aspects of contemporary life
- support the claim that Lichtenstein’s work was parodic in intent
- contrast Lichtenstein’s approach to art with that of abstract expressionism
- suggest the emotions that lie at the heart of Lichtenstein’s work
- endorse Lichtenstein’s attitude toward consumer culture
Question 3
The primary purpose of the passage is most likely to
- express curiosity about an artist’s work
- clarify the motivation behind an artist’s work
- contrast two opposing theories about an artist’s work
- describe the evolution of an artist’s work
- refute a previous overestimation of an artist’s work
Passage 2
The struggle to obtain legal recognition of aboriginal rights is a difficult one, and even if a right is written into the law there is no guarantee that the future will not bring changes to the law that undermines the right. For this reason, the federal government of Canada in 1982 extended constitutional protection to those aboriginal rights already recognized under the law. This protection was extended to the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples, the three groups generally thought to comprise the aboriginal population in Canada. But this decision has placed on provincial courts the enormous burden of interpreting and translating the necessarily general constitutional language into specific rulings. The result has been inconsistent recognition and establishment of aboriginal rights, despite the continued efforts of aboriginal peoples to raise issues concerning their rights.
Aboriginal rights in Canada are defined by the constitution as aboriginal peoples’ rights to ownership of land and its resources, the inherent right of aboriginal societies to self-government, and the right to legal recognition of indigenous customs. But difficulties arise in applying these broadly conceived rights. For example, while it might appear straightforward to affirm legal recognition of indigenous customs, the exact legal meaning of “indigenous” is extremely difficult to interpret. The intent of the constitutional protection is to recognize only long-standing traditional customs, not those of recent origin; provincial courts therefore require aboriginal peoples to provide legal documentation that any customs they seek to protect were practiced sufficiently long ago—a criterion defined in practice to mean prior to the establishment of British sovereignty over the specific territory. However, this requirement makes it difficult for aboriginal societies, which often relied on oral tradition rather than written records, to support their claims.
Furthermore, even if aboriginal peoples are successful in convincing the courts that specific rights should be recognized, it is frequently difficult to determine exactly what these rights amount to. Consider aboriginal land claims. Even when aboriginal ownership of specific lands is fully established, there remains the problem of interpreting the meaning of that “ownership.” In a 1984 case in Ontario, an aboriginal group claimed that its property rights should be interpreted as full ownership in the contemporary sense of private property, which allows for the sale of the land or its resources. But the provincial court instead ruled that the law had previously recognized only the aboriginal right to use the land and therefore granted property rights so minimal as to allow only the bare survival of the community. Here, the provincial court’s ruling was excessively conservative in its assessment of the current law. Regrettably, it appears that this group will not be successful unless it is able to move its case from the provincial courts into the Supreme Court of Canada, which will be, one hopes, more insistent upon a satisfactory application of the constitutional reforms.
Question 4
Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?
- The overly conservative rulings of Canada’s provincial courts have been a barrier to constitutional reforms intended to protect aboriginal rights.
- The overwhelming burden placed on provincial courts of interpreting constitutional language in Canada has halted efforts by aboriginal peoples to gain full ownership of land.
- Constitutional language aimed at protecting aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left the protection of these rights uncertain due to the difficult task of interpreting this language.
- Constitutional reforms meant to protect aboriginal rights in Canada have in fact been used by some provincial courts to limit these rights.
- Efforts by aboriginal rights advocates to uphold constitutional reforms in Canada may be more successful if heard by the Supreme Court rather than by the provincial courts.
Question 5
The passage provides evidence to suggest that the author would be most likely to assent to which one of the following proposals?
- Aboriginal peoples in Canada should not be answerable to the federal laws of Canada.
- Oral tradition should sometimes be considered legal documentation of certain indigenous customs.
- Aboriginal communities should be granted full protection of all of their customs.
- Provincial courts should be given no authority to decide cases involving questions of aboriginal rights.
- The language of the Canadian constitution should more carefully delineate the instances to which reforms apply.
Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
AD
Aditya Anand
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
