Comprehension
"Wash! Wash! Wash your hands!" That's been the safety-mantra ever since the pandemic COVID-19 began swamping the world. Undoubtedly, washing hands has proven to be the best way to keep germs at bay. Unfortunately, the medical practitioner who first promoted the importance of this simple activity was subjected to intense humiliation, and ultimately declared insane!
Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian doctor. In 1847, as an obstetrician, he was disturbed that post-delivery, almost every third woman died of an unexpected malady. He observed that as a part of the set routine, medical students and doctors would examine and study the corpses in the mortuary, and then come for rounds to the maternity wards. Here, without washing their hands, they would examine expectant mothers. After making numerous hypothesis and observations, he was convinced that when doctors washed their hands before examining the women in the ward, the number of deaths due to serious infection declined. He shared his observations with his colleagues and many others working in the field of medicine, but unfortunately he could not provide any concrete evidence to his theory. Sadly, due to the vehement criticism that he received, he went into depression. Furthermore, Ignaz strived to prove his point so relentlessly that it led to the belief that he had lost his mind. In 1865, a doctor deceptively lured him into an asylum for the insane, and two weeks of the brutal treatment that was meted out to him by the attendants led to his untimely death. About twenty years later, when the world became more receptive to the works of scientists like Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister, awareness regarding germs that cause diseases began to spread. This is the time when Ignaz was honoured with titles like Father of Hand Hygiene and Saviour of Mothers- an honour much too late!
Some of the most celebrated artists have earned fame much after their deaths. It is tragic that Vincent Van Gogh's awe-inspiring work was labeled as strange and amateur by most of the critics of his time. It is believed that he sold only one or two painting in his lifetime, and that too for a meager amount. Today, every single painting of Vincent Van Gogh paintings is worth millions of dollars.
Franz Kafka was a proficient writer, but when he published a few pieces of his writings, he received immense criticism. Before his death in 1924, he handed over his unpublished novels and short stories to his friend Max Brod, and urged him to destroy them; however, Brod got the manuscripts published. Today, Franz is acclaimed as one of the major fiction writers of the twentieth century; the novels titled The Trial published in 1925, and The Castle published in 1926 are considered two of his masterpieces.
Perhaps, if humans were more tolerant and amenable to change, innovative concepts, theories and creations, the deserving would live to experience the glory and honour they rightfully deserve.
Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian doctor. In 1847, as an obstetrician, he was disturbed that post-delivery, almost every third woman died of an unexpected malady. He observed that as a part of the set routine, medical students and doctors would examine and study the corpses in the mortuary, and then come for rounds to the maternity wards. Here, without washing their hands, they would examine expectant mothers. After making numerous hypothesis and observations, he was convinced that when doctors washed their hands before examining the women in the ward, the number of deaths due to serious infection declined. He shared his observations with his colleagues and many others working in the field of medicine, but unfortunately he could not provide any concrete evidence to his theory. Sadly, due to the vehement criticism that he received, he went into depression. Furthermore, Ignaz strived to prove his point so relentlessly that it led to the belief that he had lost his mind. In 1865, a doctor deceptively lured him into an asylum for the insane, and two weeks of the brutal treatment that was meted out to him by the attendants led to his untimely death. About twenty years later, when the world became more receptive to the works of scientists like Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister, awareness regarding germs that cause diseases began to spread. This is the time when Ignaz was honoured with titles like Father of Hand Hygiene and Saviour of Mothers- an honour much too late!
Some of the most celebrated artists have earned fame much after their deaths. It is tragic that Vincent Van Gogh's awe-inspiring work was labeled as strange and amateur by most of the critics of his time. It is believed that he sold only one or two painting in his lifetime, and that too for a meager amount. Today, every single painting of Vincent Van Gogh paintings is worth millions of dollars.
Franz Kafka was a proficient writer, but when he published a few pieces of his writings, he received immense criticism. Before his death in 1924, he handed over his unpublished novels and short stories to his friend Max Brod, and urged him to destroy them; however, Brod got the manuscripts published. Today, Franz is acclaimed as one of the major fiction writers of the twentieth century; the novels titled The Trial published in 1925, and The Castle published in 1926 are considered two of his masterpieces.
Perhaps, if humans were more tolerant and amenable to change, innovative concepts, theories and creations, the deserving would live to experience the glory and honour they rightfully deserve.
Question: 1
The main idea of the passage is that
The main idea of the passage is that
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- All original theories and works should receive unreserved acceptance.
- many undeserving innovators have been honoured after their demise.
- Creativity must never be inhibited.
- Numerous innovators have found recognition and appreciation of their works posthumously.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D): Numerous innovators have found recognition and appreciation of their works posthumously.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage presents three examples, Semmelweis, Van Gogh, and Kafka, each of whom faced rejection or ridicule during their lifetime and was recognised only after death. The question asks for the passage's main idea. Let's test each option against this shared pattern.
- All original theories and works should receive unreserved acceptance: The passage never argues that all original work deserves unquestioning acceptance, its closing line instead wishes for people to be "more tolerant and amenable to change," which is different from demanding blanket, unreserved acceptance of everything new. This option overstates the passage's actual claim.
- Many undeserving innovators have been honoured after their demise: The passage's three examples, Semmelweis, Van Gogh, and Kafka, are all portrayed as deserving figures whose work was later validated as genuinely valuable, not as undeserving people who received unwarranted honour. This option inverts the passage's clear sympathy for these figures.
- Creativity must never be inhibited: While the passage does touch on the cost of resistance to new ideas, it is not framed as a statement about creativity broadly, it is specifically about recognition arriving too late for the individuals involved, which is a narrower and more specific claim than "creativity must never be inhibited."
- Numerous innovators have found recognition and appreciation of their works posthumously: This is exactly the pattern shared by all three examples, Semmelweis honoured roughly twenty years after his death, Van Gogh's paintings now worth millions after near-total obscurity in his lifetime, and Kafka acclaimed as a major writer decades after his death. This option is a direct, accurate summary of what all three stories show.
Every example in the passage follows the same arc, unrecognised or rejected in life, honoured after death, which matches only the fourth option.
Therefore, the correct answer is Numerous innovators have found recognition and appreciation of their works posthumously.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
From the passage it is evident that dr. Ignaz’s theory was rejected because
From the passage it is evident that dr. Ignaz’s theory was rejected because
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- He could not substantiate it
- The doctors did not want him to regulate their work ethics
- He had been declared insane
- Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur had already discovered germs
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (A): He could not substantiate it.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage states: "He shared his observations with his colleagues and many others working in the field of medicine, but unfortunately he could not provide any concrete evidence to his theory. Sadly, due to the vehement criticism that he received, he went into depression." The question asks why his theory was rejected. Let's check each option against this specific sequence of events.
- He could not substantiate it: The passage directly states that Semmelweis "could not provide any concrete evidence to his theory." This lack of proof is stated as the reason he faced criticism in the first place, making it the cause of the rejection rather than a consequence of it.
- The doctors did not want him to regulate their work ethics: The passage does not describe his colleagues as resistant to being "regulated," it describes them criticising his theory for lacking supporting evidence. This option invents a motive of resentment toward regulation that the passage does not state.
- He had been declared insane: The passage's sequence shows this happening after the rejection of his theory and the depression it caused, not before, "due to the vehement criticism that he received, he went into depression," and only later, in 1865, was he "lured into an asylum." Being declared insane is a consequence of the earlier rejection, not its cause.
- Joseph Lister and Louis Pasteur had already discovered germs: The passage places their work about twenty years after Semmelweis's death, when "the world became more receptive to the works of scientists like Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister." Their work came later and does not explain why his original theory was rejected at the time he proposed it.
The passage's own account is explicit that the absence of concrete evidence, not later events like his confinement or Pasteur and Lister's subsequent work, is what caused his theory to be dismissed initially.
Therefore, the correct answer is He could not substantiate it.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
From the passage one can conclude that the art critics who ____ Van Gogh’s works were ____ .
From the passage one can conclude that the art critics who ____ Van Gogh’s works were ____ .
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Applauded, pessimistic.
- Censured, hypercritical.
- Denounced, tolerant.
- Acclaimed, rigid.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (B): Censured, hypercritical.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage states that Van Gogh's "awe-inspiring work was labeled as strange and amateur by most of the critics of his time," and that he sold only one or two paintings in his lifetime. The question asks how the critics who reacted this way, and their nature, should be described. Let's check each option pair.
- Applauded, pessimistic: The passage explicitly says the critics labelled his work "strange and amateur," which is criticism, not applause. This first word alone contradicts the passage.
- Censured, hypercritical: "Censured" means harshly criticised or condemned, matching critics who called his work "strange and amateur" and who caused him to sell almost nothing in his lifetime. "Hypercritical" means excessively or unfairly critical, which fits critics who dismissed work now recognised as worth millions, a judgement that later proved to be excessively harsh.
- Denounced, tolerant: "Denounced" could arguably fit the harsh labelling, but "tolerant" directly contradicts it, tolerant critics would not have dismissed his work as "strange and amateur" and left him almost unable to sell a single painting.
- Acclaimed, rigid: "Acclaimed" means praised, which is the opposite of what the passage describes, the critics did not praise his work during his lifetime at all.
Only the pairing of "censured" (matching the harsh, dismissive labelling) with "hypercritical" (matching a judgement later proven excessively unfair, given the work's now-recognised value) is fully consistent with the passage.
Therefore, the correct answer is Censured, hypercritical.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
From the passage it can be inferred that Max Brod
From the passage it can be inferred that Max Brod
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Was of the opinion that Franz had not reached out to the right critics
- Decried Franz’s writings
- Considered it unsacred to destroy any manuscript
- Appreciated and valued Franz’s works
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (D): Appreciated and valued Franz’s works.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The passage states that Kafka "handed over his unpublished novels and short stories to his friend Max Brod, and urged him to destroy them; however, Brod got the manuscripts published." The question asks what can be inferred about Brod from this. Let's check each option.
- Was of the opinion that Franz had not reached out to the right critics: The passage says nothing about Brod having any view on which critics Kafka approached, this detail is never mentioned anywhere in connection with Brod.
- Decried Franz's writings: "Decried" means to openly criticise or belittle. Brod's action, publishing the manuscripts against Kafka's explicit wish to have them destroyed, is the opposite of belittling them, it is an act of preserving and promoting them.
- Considered it unsacred to destroy any manuscript: This is too broad a claim, the passage only tells us Brod chose not to destroy Kafka's specific manuscripts, it does not say Brod held a general principle against destroying "any manuscript" whatsoever.
- Appreciated and valued Franz's works: Brod's decision to defy his friend's explicit instruction and publish the manuscripts instead of destroying them, works that went on to be regarded as masterpieces, is a direct action showing he believed in their worth enough to preserve and share them.
Choosing to publish rather than destroy manuscripts he had been explicitly asked to burn is Brod acting on a belief that the work deserved to survive, which matches only the option that he appreciated and valued Franz's works.
Therefore, the correct answer is Appreciated and valued Franz's works.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The word relentlessly in the passage can be best replaced by the word
The word relentlessly in the passage can be best replaced by the word
Updated On: Jul 14, 2026
- Irresolutely
- Recklessly
- Unabatedly
- Unabashedly
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The correct option is (C): Unabatedly.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
The word appears in the passage describing Ignaz's efforts: "Ignaz strived to prove his point so relentlessly that it led to the belief that he had lost his mind." The question asks for the best replacement for "relentlessly" in this context. Let's check each option.
- Irresolutely: This means hesitantly or without firm decision. "Relentlessly" describes the opposite, a persistence so intense it made others think he had lost his mind, someone acting irresolutely would not provoke that reaction.
- Recklessly: This means acting without caution or regard for consequences. The passage describes Ignaz as having strived to "prove his point," which is about persistence in argument, not about carelessness or danger, so "recklessly" changes the meaning.
- Unabatedly: This means without lessening in force or intensity. Ignaz's efforts to prove his point, so intense that others thought he had lost his mind, is precisely a persistence that did not let up, matching "unabatedly" closely.
- Unabashedly: This means without embarrassment or shame. The passage is describing the intensity and constancy of his effort, not whether he felt shame about it, so this changes the sense of the sentence.
"Relentlessly" describes an effort that continues without weakening, which is the exact meaning of "unabatedly," unlike the hesitancy, carelessness, or shamelessness suggested by the other three options.
Therefore, the correct answer is Unabatedly.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT Questions
- In the realm of contemporary literature, the interplay between character and setting is a nuanced dance that shapes the narrative’s essence. The setting, often described with painstaking detail, becomes more than a backdrop; it becomes a character, influencing the plot and character development.
Consider, for instance, the barren expanse of the desert in Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. The arid landscape mirrors the sense of isolation felt by the protagonist, Gogol, as he navigates his identity crisis in a foreign land. The relentless sun and vast sands are not mere descriptions; they are the silent witnesses to his inner turmoil.
On the other end of the literary spectrum, there is Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The lush, vibrant Kerala backwaters are not just the setting; they are a character woven into the fabric of the story. The teeming, humid landscape reflects the complex web of human relationships and secrets that unravel in the narrative. This interplay is not confined to contemporary literature alone. In Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy Macbeth, the eerie and foreboding setting of the Scottish moors casts a dark shadow over the characters’ actions. The moors, shrouded in mist and mystery, serve as an ever-present omen of the impending tragedy. - The crisis of justice that is the subject matter of discussion in the media today is in fact the crisis of “justice for the middle class”. The main difference between India and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries is that whereas the middle class in these countries has reasonable access to justice, in India it does not. A vocal and powerful middle class has emerged in India since 1991. It is demanding reasonable access to justice. Much of the judicial reform effort will help meet this demand…
The question of justice for the poor is, however, an altogether different challenge. No country in the world has been able to secure justice for the poor. Most of the jails of the richest countries are filled with the poorest. The “masses” are more often victims of the criminal justice system than of crime. In India as well, jails are almost exclusively filled with the poor. The civil justice system is hardly accessible to them. They are often victimised by lawyers, touts and court staff. They are docket-excluded, a new type of untouchability. The language and the logic—and the colonial and feudal culture—of the judicial system are alien to them. It rarely takes cognisance of their needs and interests.
Their main concern, therefore, is to escape the attention of the justice system, criminal and civil. A landless Dalit person in the interior of Madhya Pradesh once gave me an insightful definition of a court from the perspective of the masses: “A court is a place where you are forcibly taken by the police to be punished; no one goes to a court.” In contrast, many lawyers and judges colloquially define a court as “a temple of justice where rights are protected”.
These sharply divergent visions mean that justice for one section is often injustice for another. Protecting the livelihood of traditional taxi and auto drivers from predatory pricing by corporate app-based taxi providers by imaginatively using the available tools of law to delay their incursion would be seen by the rich and by sections of the middle class as a failure of the judicial system, and possibly as also resulting in a downgrading of the “ease of doing business” measure. However, the masses would see such a judicial intervention as strong evidence of a good justice system. Although the conflict over competing visions of the nation and conflicting demands from social and economic segments have confined judicial reform of judicial administration mainly to “neutral” areas such as process reform, procedural law, technology, planning and court and case management, judge strength, and the workload of judges, there has been considerable improvement in these areas, and the judicial system has improved its performance.
[Extracted, with edits, from “Justice and the Two Ideas of India”, by G. Mohan Gopal, Frontline] - Everything she wanted was here, at Carignano, in Kasauli. Here, on the ridge of the mountain, in this quiet house. It was the place, and the time of life, that she had wanted and prepared for all her life-as she realized on the first day at Carignano, with a great, cool flowering of relief - and at last she had it. She wanted no one and nothing else. Whatever else came, or happened here, would be an unwelcome intrusion and distraction. This she tried to convey to the plodding postman with a cold and piercing stare from the height of the ridge onto his honest bull back. Unfortunately, he did not look up at her on the hilltop but stared stolidly down at the dust piling onto his shoes as he plodded on. A bullock-man, an oafish ox, she thought bitterly. She stepped backwards into the garden and the wind suddenly billowed up and threw the pine branches about as though to curtain her. She was grey, tall and thin and her silk sari made a sweeping, shivering sound and she fancied she could merge with the pine trees and be mistaken for one. To be a tree, no more and no less, was all she was prepared to undertake.
What pleased and satisfied her so, here at Carignano, was its barrenness. This was the chief virtue of all Kasauli of course-its starkness. It had rocks, it had pines, it had light and air. In every direction there was a sweeping view - to the north, of the mountains, to the south, of the plains. Occasionally an eagle swam through this clear unobstructed mass of light and air, that was all. And Carignano, her home on the ridge, had no more than that. Why should it? The sun shone on its white walls. Its windows were open the ones facing north opened on to the blue waves of the Himalayas flowing out and up to the line of ice and snow sketched upon the sky, while those that faced south looked down the plunging cliff to the plain stretching out, flat and sere to the blurred horizon.
Yes, there were some apricot trees close to the house. There were clumps of iris that had finished blooming. There was the kitchen with a wing of smoke lifting out of its chimney and a stack of wood outside its door. But these were incidental, almost unimportant.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “Fire on the Mountain” by Anita Desai] - English literature is a vast and diverse field that has left an indelible mark on the world of letters. From the eloquent plays of William Shakespeare to the complex novels of Jane Austen and the profound poetry of William Wordsworth, English literature offers a window into the human experience. One of the luminaries of English literature is William Shakespeare, often hailed as the greatest playwright in the history of English language. His works, including Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet, are celebrated for their exploration of human nature, love, ambition, and tragedy. His characters, such as the tormented Hamlet and the star-crossed lovers Romeo and Juliet, continue to captivate readers and audiences worldwide.
The 19th century ushered in a new era of literary giants. Jane Austen’s novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, provide incisive social commentary through the lens of wit and romance. Austen’s heroines, like Elizabeth Bennet and Elinor Dashwood, remain beloved literary figures known for their intelligence and resilience. The Romantic era brought forth poets like William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who celebrated * 8 UG the beauty of nature and the emotional intensity of the individual. Wordsworth’s ‘‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’’ and Coleridge’s ‘‘The Rime of the Ancient Mariner’’ are testament to the power of the written words to evoke profound emotions and imagery. Moving towards 20th century, English literature continued to evolve. Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking novel Mrs. Dalloway explored the inner thoughts and lives of its characters with a modernist narrative style. Dystopian visions, as seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four provided stark warnings about the dangers of totalitarianism and the erosion of individual freedom.
Today, English literature is a global phenomenon, transcending borders and languages. Indian authors like Arundhati Roy, with her novel The God of Small Things, have won prestigious international literary awards. The book not only explores intricate family dynamics but also delves into the broader socio-political landscape of India. In summary, English literature is a testament to the enduring power of storytelling and the written word. It encompasses an array of authors, themes, and styles that continue to captivate and inspire readers across the world. - On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh. He proceeded there with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square, which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops’ fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer’s own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. The people were not able to escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes, the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those who lived nearby came and carried away some of the wounded from the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India…
Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot, just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible business.
[Col. Wedgwood, MP, speaking in the British Parliament, 22 December 1919]
View More Questions