Reading Comprehension Set 13

Directions (Q.1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.
The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate.
The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.
The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.
Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.
Q1.Which of the following is the synonym of the word “coalesce”?
1) Amalgamate
2) Stilted
3) Strained
4) tranquility
5) None of these
Q2.Which of the following is the synonym of the word “intractable”?
1) Sparse
2) Untraceable
3) Snarl
4) Indomitable
5) None of these
Q3.Which of the following Acronyms are not used in the above passage?
1) NWS
3) ISI
4) IS
5) NPT
Q4.Choose an appropriate title for the passage?
1) Nuclear Warhead
2) No frisson in Talks Over Fission
3) Failed Treaty NPT
4) Fusion or Fission: Which one is better
5) Its all about Nuclear
Q5.Which of the following is not true according to the passage?
1) The NPT left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained.
2) The The Review held in 2010 was an utter failure.
3) The nuclear shenanigans of North Korea were once viewed as a major global danger.
4) China is the part of P5+1 states.
5) None of the above
Q6.In the above passage, the author is not talking about?
1) The 2015 Review on NPT
2) Last CHOGM meeting held in 2005 and 2010
3) Nuclear disarmament of NWS
4) All of the above
5) None of these
Q7.Which among the following describes the meaning of the phrase “shenanigans of North Korea”?
1) Dishonest Activity
3) Strained action
5) None of these
Q8.Which of the following is true according to the passage?
1) Hillary Clinton will be one of the presidential candidate for the next Election
2) The non-nuclear states are demanding tangible action from the NWS.
3) NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario.
4) North Korea is ready for the disarmament which is a global asset to the world.
5) None of these
Q9.Which of the following is the synonym of the word “disarmament”?
1) dematerialisation
2) Surrender
3) demilitarization
4) demeanour
5) None of these
Q10.Which of the following is not the synonym of the word “contentious”?
1) controversial
2) disputable
3) debatable
4) disputed
5) None of these


1. 1
2. 4
3. 3
4. 2
5. 2
6. 2
7. 1
8. 3
9. 3
10. 5

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *