Hello Aspirants.
Welcome to Online English Section with explanation in Affairs Cloud.com. Here we are creating question sample in Cloze test, which is BASED ON IBPS PO/CLERK/LIC AAO/RRB & SSC CGL EXAM and other competitive exams !!!
Since the mandate of the CSBP and the expertise of its members are both severely limited, it is likely to come up with another set of ‘ad hoc’ solutions to serious challenges in managing our western border, unless it is willing to address and appreciate some of the (1) and long-standing issues.
It is surprising that there is hardly any bilateral treaty/legal basis to guide the management of the border between India and Pakistan. The India Pakistan Border Ground Rules, 1960-61, which is ‘supposed’ to form the basis of the management of the International Border (IB) between the two sides, has not been signed by the two governments. More so, India does not officially (2) the ground rules. The two sides last met in 2005 to frame new rules, but there has been no movement thereafter. Senior BSF officials in New Delhi say that they have been reminding the Home Ministry to finalise the same. More (3) , even though the two sides have not yet signed the ground rules, they have to (4) by it in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat since there is practically nothing else to go by. That, strictly speaking, is an ad hoc (5) to manage a border that runs into thousands of kilometres.
There is also confusion when it comes to the IB in the Jammu sector. It is not even considered as a settled IB (unlike in Punjab, Rajasthan, etc.) by Pakistan. And yet, the two sides do adhere to the ground rules there even though India maintains their (6) is an ad hoc arrangement and Pakistan claims the border itself is ad hoc. BSF officials in Jammu confirmed to this author during a recent field trip along India’s Pakistan border that they follow the 1960-61 ground rules. So do Pakistan (7) , as an ad hoc arrangement, of course. Officials in Pakistan and India say that they will continue to follow the 1960-61 rules till new rules are (8) by both sides.
While the border in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat has not had any significant issues due to the non-finalisation of the 1960-61 ground rules, this poses a serious problem in the Jammu sector, especially given Pakistan’s non-recognition of the finality of this border and the recurrent (9) violations that happen in the region, like the one a few days ago. Unlike what is generally understood, for , (10) ceasefire violations are often a result of local-level factors, many of which can be avoided if the two sides have a mutually agreed set of rules to go by.
- 1) stopped
2) recurrent
3) infrequent
4) permanent
5) preventedAnswer – 2)
Explanation : recurrent - 1) established
2) constituted
3) acknowledged
4) cognisant
5) recogniseAnswer – 5)
Explanation : recognise - 1) aberrant
2) anomalistic
3) curiously
4) anomalous
5) atypicalAnswer – 3)
Explanation : curiously - 1) shun
2) abide
3) despise
4) resist
5) quitAnswer – 2)
Explanation : abide - 1) arrangement
2) revocation
3) abrogation
4) annulment
5) retractionAnswer – 1)
Explanation : arrangement - 1) criticise
2) abject
3) observance
4) heedlessness
5) neglectAnswer – 3)
Explanation : observance - 1) Rangers
2) fighter
3) army
4) commanders
5) immigrantsAnswer – 1)
Explanation : Rangers - 1) decide
2) prides
3) categorised
4) specialised
5) finalisedAnswer – 5)
Explanation : finalised - 1) altercation
2) embroilment
3) bickering
4) ceasefire
5) beefAnswer – 4)
Explanation : ceasefire - 1) asinged
2) instance
3) obscure
4) impound
5) consistenceAnswer – 2)
Explanation : instance
