Read the following passage and answer the given question.

As Lisa Morton notes in Calling the Spirits: A History of Seances, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that proves the existence of spirits or any ability on our part or theirs, if they did exist, that we can communicate with them. Despite this, there is hardly a culture or people on earth that has not or does not believe in a spiritual life of some sort after death and that does not have some sort of ritual conducted by a “specialist” to communicate with the dead. Human beings are convinced, and have been throughout history, that there is an afterlife, that death is not the end but simply a gateway to more life, and that this afterlife has some profound effect upon those still living this life. What this pervasive belief shows is: Calling the Spirits is a nifty survey of the western world’s supposed interactions with the spirits of the dead. Necromancy, the art of summoning the spirits, has long fascinated us, and it was common in the ancient world for those with special gifts of some sort to summon the dead or the gods (good, bad, and trickster) or demi-gods, the halfway house between mortal and immortal. I suppose that Jesus would not be considered a necromancer for calling out the evil spirits of the possessed, but he clearly could get spirits to obey his commands. Although Jesus raised the dead, he did not commune with the spirits of the dead or make a claim that they had an active influence on the living. In the ancient world, people summoned the dead to get predictions about the future; presumably the dead, not imprisoned by time, are able to see the past, the present, and the future simultaneously. And they, despite being dead, are still concerned with what goes on among the living.

Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage?

Loneliness is the most frightening prospect for humans.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Almost all cultures believe in some sort of spiritual life after death.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Humans can understand non-existence but do not want to.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Science influences us to a much greater degree than we profess it to do so.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is B Almost all cultures believe in some sort of spiritual life after death.
Option A with “most frightening prospect” is too strong an expression for it to be the correct inference. The passage mentions that being alone frightens us more than evil spirits do.

Option B can be inferred. Refer to the following extract: “Despite this, there is hardly a culture or people on earth that has not or does not believe in a spiritual life of some sort after death and that does not have some sort of ritual conducted by a “specialist” to communicate with the dead.”

Option C is not inferred. The relevant extract states “we cannot imagine non-existence or fervently do not want to; for us, life only begets more life.” Option C contradicts this assertion made in quotes.

Option D is also not inferred. The relevant extract states “that science has far less influence on our thinking than we might claim…”, which contradicts option D.

Hence, the correct answer is option B.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Read the passage given below and choose the option that best fits the question that follows:

The Indian culture of our times is in the making. Many of us are striving to produce a blend of all cultures that seem today to be in clash with one another. No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive. There is no such thing as a pure Aryan culture in existence in India today. Whether the Aryans were indigenous to India or were unwelcome intruders, does not interest me much. What does interest me is the fact that my remote ancestors blended with one another with the utmost freedom and we of the present generation are a result of that blend. I do not want my house to be walled in, on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I would have any young men and women with literary tastes to learn as much of English and other world-languages as they like, and then expect them to give the benefits of their learning to India and the world alike like a Bose, a Ray or Tagore. But I would not have a single Indian forget, neglect or be ashamed of his mother tongue, or feel that he or she cannot think or express the best thoughts in his or her own vernacular. Mine is not a religion of the prison house.

The author thinks that _________.

Read the passage given below and choose the option that completes the blank:

The author wants Indians to _____________________.

The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationist is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves— particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view, preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.

The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to—for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"—do not cohere well with the community participation model. Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as an organism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists' view.

However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old- fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.

Q. The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists

Read the passage to answer the question:
The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationism is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves— particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view,preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.

The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to—for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"—do not cohere well with the community participation model.Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as an organism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists' view.

... However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old- fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.

The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists:

Read the passage given below and accordingly, fill in the blank:

The Indian culture of our times is in the making. Many of us are striving to produce a blend of all cultures that seem today to be in clash with one another. No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive. There is no such thing as pure Aryan culture in existence in India today. Whether the Aryans were indigenous to India or were unwelcome intruders, does not interest me much. What does interest me is the fact that my remote ancestors blended with one another with the utmost freedom and we of the present generation are a result of that blend. I do not want my house to be walled in, on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I would have any young men and women with literary tastes to learn as much of English and other world-languages as they like, and then expect them to give the benefits of their learning to India and the world alike like a Bose, a Ray or Tagore. But I would not have a single Indian forget, neglect or be ashamed of his mother tongue, or feel that he or she cannot think or express the best thoughts in his or her own vernacular. Mine is not a religion of the prison house.

The author views Indian Culture as __________________.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program