Which of the statements given below are correct?

A) Elina Svitolina won the Tennis 2017 Italian Open Women's Singles.

B) Lewis Hamilton won the Formula One 2017 Italian Grand Prix.

C) In 2017, James Harden played for the NBA team Milwaukee Bucks.

Which of the statements given below are correct?

A) Alexander Zverev won the Tennis 2017 Italian Open Men's Singles.

B) In 2017 Pro Kabaddi League, Selvamani K played for Puneri Paltan.

C) United States hosted the Tennis 2017 Hopman Cup.

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 to the 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 in India. 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 in their 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 to that 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? The onus 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 to the 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 in India. 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 in their 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 to that 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? The onus 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.

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 to the 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 in India. 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 in their 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 to that 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? The onus 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 to the 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 in India. 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 in their 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 to that 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? The onus 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.

It is a labour of love and the result of painstaking research. Chikankari - A Lucknawi Tradition by Paola Manfredi, an Italian, is a book that shows her close and long association with the craft. Lucknow’s chikankari is known across the world yet very little research or documentation has been done. Articles or features have appeared off and on but this book is amongst the first of its kind, which aims to document the vast treasure called Chikan. What makes the book extremely interesting is that unlike other books that tend to rely on second hand material, with exhaustive references and quotes, Paola Manfredi has filled her tome with passionate grass-roots level research. The narrative more in the nature of a personal journey, with all the quirks and street-smart practicality, makes the book refreshing. As Paola says in the book, it is not a scholarly or academic research but more of a documentation of the world of chikankari.

Paola questions the use of chikan as a word for embroidery, highlighting that it has a broader connotation encompassing haute couture, the fine art of making a garment, embroidering it and finishing it with finesse. She is no stranger to chikankari having worked with SEWA and several craftsmen. Her love for white on white embroidery also found a calling in chikan. Paola came to India to work in textile exports and as she says, “If you like textiles ... India is a heaven, an inexhaustible treasure trove.”

What makes the book, ‘Chikankari - A Lucknawi Tradition’ interesting?

Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.

It is a labour of love and the result of painstaking research. Chikankari - A Lucknawi Tradition by Paola Manfredi, an Italian, is a book that shows her close and long association with the craft. Lucknow’s chikankari is known across the world yet very little research or documentation has been done. Articles or features have appeared off and on but this book is amongst the first of its kind, which aims to document the vast treasure called Chikan. What makes the book extremely interesting is that unlike other books that tend to rely on second hand material, with exhaustive references and quotes, Paola Manfredi has filled her tome with passionate grass-roots level research. The narrative more in the nature of a personal journey, with all the quirks and street-smart practicality, makes the book refreshing. As Paola says in the book, it is not a scholarly or academic research but more of a documentation of the world of chikankari.

Paola questions the use of chikan as a word for embroidery, highlighting that it has a broader connotation encompassing haute couture, the fine art of making a garment, embroidering it and finishing it with finesse. She is no stranger to chikankari having worked with SEWA and several craftsmen. Her love for white on white embroidery also found a calling in chikan. Paola came to India to work in textile exports and as she says, “If you like textiles ... India is a heaven, an inexhaustible treasure trove.”

The book, ‘Chikankari - A Lucknawi Tradition’ is best described as a ____________ the art of chikankari.