Read the article and select the best answer. Article: Protagoras was among the great teachers of ancient Athens. He taught many subjects, including the laws of argument and the right use of language. It is said that he was the first teacher to accept money for his services. A student, Evalthus, heard of this famous teacher and asked him to give him lessons. However, Evalthus didn't want to pay for his lessons at once, and after some discussion it was finally agreed between them that Evalthus should pay only if he won his first case in the court. For if he won, it would prove that he had been taught well. The lessons began and Evalthus proved himself to be a good student. But he refused to pay Protagoras anything at the end of his studies. Protagoras therefore took Evalthus to the court and told the judges that he wanted his money. He explained that he must be paid whether he won or lost the case. "Whatever you decide," he declared to the judges, " I must be paid. For if you decide in my fovor , then I win the case, and so I must be paid . But If you decide against me, then Evalthus has won his first case in the court; according to our agreement, he must pay his lessons. Therefore I shall get my money whatever happens." The Athenian judges found no fault in it, so they asked Evalthus to reply. "No, it's quite clear," said Evalthus, " that I need not pay. If the judged decide in my favor, then I have won the case, and I need not to pay. But if Protagoras wins, then I have lost my first case. Therefore, according to our agreement, I do not have to pay. So I need not pay in any event." As both arguments appeared to be faultless, the judges were unable to come to a decision. They therefore ordered the two men to appear before them again one hundred years later. Question: What is probably the best title for the text? Options: A: A Smart Student---- Evalthus B: A Great Teacher---Protagoras C: Come Here One Hundred Years Later D: A Fight Between Teacher and Student
C

Read the article and select the best answer. Article: The word tolerance is widely used in liberal democracies. It indicates a positive meaning. Politicians urge us to be tolerant towards minorities. Educators teach us to be tolerant towards the other. The press is full of references to the need to display tolerance when faced with individuals or groups espousing a different view or holding a different religious belief. A tolerant society is an objective sought after by anyone who believes in the values of democracy. A tolerant individual is attributed with virtuous qualities. The question we must ask is whether we have been using the word tolerance fully aware of its meaning and whether we have applied it correctly to reflect what we really wish to convey? The word tolerance means to bear, or to bear with. If I tolerate something or someone, I basically say that I am ready to bear it or him. I can tolerate a bad smell or a noisy neighbour. The act of toleration forces me to desist from conveying my objection to the existence of a phenomenon, which I find difficult to bear. A bad smell or a noisy neighbour is considered by me to be an objectionable phenomenon. By tolerating either of them, I am not transforming the bad smell or the noisy neighbour into positive phenomena. Let's be honest: I don't have a different taste when it comes to bad smells. I simply dislike it and wish that it disappears. I don't respect the noisy neighbour. I would rather have him stop at once the noise he is making so I can live in peace. To try to remove the bad smell or take reasonable action in order for the noisy neighbour to stop bothering me would most probably not be considered an intolerant act by most people. Now, let's try to apply the word tolerance in reference to a person who is law-abiding and holds a legally acceptable different view from my own. I may have a strong view, which is opposed to his. Quite frankly, I may decide to tolerate his view. By so doing, I would be attributing to it a negative characteristic. I would apply the same attitude to his view as to the bad... Question: Which of the following will the writer probably agree with? Options: A: Too much tolerance will endanger the foundations of democratic systems. B: By tolerating people can transform something negative into the opposite. C: People tolerating others are likely to consider them as their equals. D: Being tolerant should be regarded as a right instead of a favour
A

*Question*
Read the article and select the best answer. Article: Our cat has a sweet nature, and she can let us know what she wants. When we fail to meet her needs, she gently leads us in the proper direction. When I forget to fill her water bowl early in the morning, she runs after my legs, and then pushes me in the direction of her bowl. She doesn't get irritated ; instead, she expresses her wishes in the best way. And I always understand what she is telling me. One day I found myself envying her simple expression. How many times had I expected my husband or my children to know my wants without my ever giving voice to them? How many times had I been disappointed that they couldn't understand when I needed a hug, a compliment or a chocolate bar? After a pleasant afternoon with my husband, I wanted to stop somewhere nice and have dinner, but he didn't understand my hints . "Couldn't you see that I wanted to go out to dinner?" I complained when he pulled into our driveway. "Why didn't you say so? I can't read your mind," he answered in impatience. _ . Had I expected him to read my mind? Why hadn't I expressed my desire more clearly? I realized I had fallen into the female trap of "If you love me, you can read my mind." Now, I state my needs clearly and directly. I look at my cat and know she agrees. Question: Why was the author disappointed in her husband or her children? Options: A: Her husband didn't give her a hug. B: Her children didn't give her a chocolate bar. C: They didn't give her a compliment. D: They didn't understand her mind.
**Answer**
D