CTET December 2018 Paper 2 Language 2 English

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#1. Choose the word which is most nearly the same in meaning as the word ‘thwarted’ as used in the passage.

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

 After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#2. Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning of the word ‘conceded’ as used in the passage.

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#3. Why was central economic planning found to be difficult?

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#4. Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?Which one of the following problems was India faced with after independence?

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#5. Which one of the following issues was not appropriately realized by the Central Government?

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#6. Which, according to the passage, can be cited as exercise in democratic practice in India before independence

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#7. Which one of the following statements is not true in the context of the passage

The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#8. Why was the linguistic reorganization of the States accepted?

 The strength of Indian democracy lies in its tradition, in the fusion of the ideas of democracy and national independence which was characteristic of the Indian national movement long before independence. Although the British retained supreme authority over India until 1947, the provincial elections of 1937 provided real exercise in democratic practice before national independence. During the Pacific War, India was not overrun or seriously invaded by the Japanese and after the War was over, the transfer of power to a government of the Indian Congress Party was a peaceful one as far as Britain was concerned. By 1947, ‘Indianization’ had already gone far in the Indian Civil Service and army, so that the new government could start with effective instruments of central control.

 After independence, however, India was faced with two vast problems, the first, that of ethnic diversity and the aspirations of sub-nationalities. The Congress leadership was more aware of the former problem than of the second; as a new political elite which had rebelled not only against the British Raj, but also against India’s social order; they were conscious of the need to initiate economic development and undertake social reforms, but as nationalists who had led a struggle against alien rule on behalf of all parts of India, they took the cohesion of the Indian nation too much for granted and underestimated the centrifugal forces of ethnic division, which were bound to be accentuated rather than diminished as the popular masses were more and more drawn into politics. The Congress Party was originally opposed to the idea of recognizing any division of India on a linguistic basis and preferred to retain the old provinces of British India which often cut across linguistic boundaries; it was only in response to strong pressures from below that the principle of linguistic States was conceded as the basis of a federal ‘Indian Union’. The rights granted to the States created new problems for the Central Government. The idea of making Hindi the national language of a united India was thwarted by the recalcitrance of the speakers of other important Indian languages, and the autonomy of the States rendered central economic planning extremely difficult.

 Land reforms remained under the control of the States and many large-scale economic projects required a degree of cooperation between the Central Government and one or more of the States which it was found impossible to achieve. Coordination of policies was difficult even when the Congress Party was in power both in the States and at the Centre; when a Congress government in Delhi was confronted with non-Congress parties in office in the States, it became much harder.

#9. India was not overrun by the Japanese during the Pacific War because—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kindsdo cause and induce. ”For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#10. The change in the present situation which has forced us to rethink the concept of friendship is—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’scultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle :How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of  human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends  (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#11. Friendship leads to happiness. Is it true?

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on thesu bject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.”For Thoreau, friendshipwas one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists a greethat friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#12. Did Pigliucci’s book discuss intuition too?

“A principal fruit of friendship”, FrancisBacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendshipwas one of life’s great rewards. But intoday’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider whatfriendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor MassimoPigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle :How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us toa More Meaningful Life (public library), whichalso gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchersconfirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#13. Is the quality of friends important?

“A principal fruit of friendship”, FrancisBacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship  was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#14. As per the first paragraph, what are the debates about?

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#15. The word that is opposite in meaning to the word ‘muddled’ is—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of thefullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends

(or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#16. Positive interference is a kind of—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#17. In learning the new language, multilingualism is—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends(or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#18. Note taking is done—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis
Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the
subject, “is the ease and discharge of the
fullness and swellings of the heart, which
passions of all kinds do cause and induce.”
For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great
rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape
of muddled relationships scattered across
various platforms for connecting, amidst
constant debates about whether our
Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more
or less happy, it pays to consider what
friendship actually is. That’s precisely what
CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo
Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle :
How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to
a More Meaningful Life (public library), which
also gave us this provocative read on the
science of what we call ‘intuition’.
Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree
that friendship is an essential ingredient of
human happiness. But beyond the dry
academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary
interdependence between two persons over
time, which is intended to facilitate
socio-emotional goals of the participants, and
may involve varying types and degrees of
companionship, intimacy, affection and
mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling
research that sheds light on how, precisely,
friendship augments happiness. The way
friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers
confirm that it isn’t the number of friends
(or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#19. The method of teaching foreign language without using the pupil’s first language is—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’)

#20. Two words have identical sound and spelling, but not related in meaning. It is known as—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’)

#21. Language of word is not necessary for—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo  Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library),  which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’ Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’)

#22. Communicative Language Teaching replaced basically—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds  do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one  of life’s great rewards. But in today’s  cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo  Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle :How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons overtime, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researcher sconfirm that it isn’t the number of friends(or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’)

#23. Students are not organisms. Which one of the following methods sees them as a whole person?way

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swelling sof the heart, which passions of all  kinds  do cause and induce.” For  Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us toa More M eaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate       socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection andmu   tual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how,  precisely,  friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#24. Writing is the _____ representation of speech sounds

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do  cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agre that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#25. When a teacher uses realia to teach vocabulary and grammar, she is—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#26. A poem whose first letters of each line spell out a word is called—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and  swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds  do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship  was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient ofhuman happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#27. Decorum in spoken English pertainsto—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape

of muddled relationships scattered across

various platforms for connecting, amidst

constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends (or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#28. Inquiry-based curriculum is basedon—

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntary interdependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends(or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#29. Which of the following are structuralwords?

“A principal fruit of friendship”, Francis Bacon wrote in his timeless meditation on the subject, “is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which passions of all kinds do cause and induce.” For Thoreau, friendship   was one of life’s great rewards. But in today’s cultural landscape of muddled relationships scattered across various platforms for connecting, amidst constant debates about whether our Facebook ‘friendships’ are making us more or less happy, it pays to consider what friendship actually is. That’s precisely what CUNY Philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci explores in Answers for Aristotle : How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to a More Meaningful Life (public library), which also gave us this provocative read on the science of what we call ‘intuition’. Philosophers and cognitive scientists agree that friendship is an essential ingredient of human happiness. But beyond the dry academic definitions—like, say, “voluntaryinter dependence between two persons over time, which is intended to facilitate socio-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual assistance”—lies a body of compelling research that sheds light on how, precisely, friendship augments happiness. The way friendship enhances well-being, it turns out, has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality—researchers confirm that it isn’t the number of friends(or, in the case of Facebook, ‘friends’).

#30. Conventions of writing include—