Always remember that your principle task while any reading is to figure out what the author is trying to say. Previous Text analysis samples provided must have elucidated the fact then you see 40 lines , the crux of the idea lies in perhaps 2-3 . So forever you must look and ask and identify “What the author is trying to say ” . Writers use various tricks and techniques to add support or illustrate what they want to say. Your task is to identify the Core from the surroundings and also understand all relations presented in the text .
The following passage should present a reasonable challenge
Read the text below in detective mode and try and identify the central idea of the passage
When James Lyngdoh, Chief Election Commissioner, likened Indian politicians to a cancerous growth in society, did he choose his metaphor wisely? Indeed, he too approached the metaphor of cancer guardedly, and qualified it by saying that it was applicable till such time as a cure for this disease was found. Though the political class in this country has united, across party lines, in condemning Mr Lyngdoh, his outburst against politicians has struck a sympathetic chord with a large number of ordinary people, cutting across class and status lines. Cancer is certainly a very evocative metaphor, and the manner in which politicians openly loot the country and help themselves to all kinds of privileges gives Mr Lyngdoh’s statement immediate credibility.
Yet, how right is Mr Lyngdoh? Politicians are indeed like cancer as they refuse to behave normally. They create corruption, and more corruption wherever they go and with whatever they touch. They thrive on good cells and outwit them with their cunning wiles. They tend to multiply rapidly and spread irrevocably throughout the body, knowing no limits, respecting no organ. Politicians are just too strong for the meek resistance that some organisations mount against them from time to time.
This is because politicians always unite when it comes to anybody threatening their privileges. All parties happily agreed to give their MPs pensions for life and other lifetime privileges such as free travel. While they are serving their terms they often run up enormous telephone and electricity bills, and as Mr Lyngdoh has pointed out, use government machinery for party purposes. Yet, one does not hear any politician condemn these practices. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that once again political parties have united in condemning Mr Lyngdoh for likening them to a cancerous growth. But those touched by cancer would likely find fault with Mr Lyngdoh’s choice of metaphor.
To begin with, a patient stricken by cancer fights back, and it is a glorious fight for it is a struggle for life. Politicians, on the other hand, are rarely opposed by the body on which they feed. For, when it comes to politicians, we all try to curry favour with them. Cancer patients, on the other hand, cast aside every other consideration to channel their resources, meagre though they may be in some cases, in order to regain their health. This is illustrated by the number of instances every day of poor people, and those of modest means, selling what they own in order to buy medicines to cure themselves of cancer. Nothing is as important to them but to kill the malignant cells even if they lose a few good ones in this struggle.
A cancer patient fights back because the body, in which life is enshrined, is too precious to lose. Cancer patients want to regain status quo ante and their health by doing whatever is needed to rid the body of any traces of the disease. They recognise only too well that even one malignant cell can spell ruin. Politicians, however, face little concerted opposition because the body on which they feed is not really an unwilling host. Mr Lyngdoh recognised as much when he said that we show far too much deference and respect to politicians. Cancer cells, on the other hand, no matter what standards are used, are always seen as evil. Nor is every cancer patient terminal. Unlike the stranglehold that politicians have on our society, a cancer can be cured and the body can regain its health. Besides the treatments, which generally include a combination of aggressive therapies, early detection increases the success rate against cancer phenomenally. Conversely, when one detects a politician early it is usually seen as a good future investment. Such a power-monger could become a loyal patron for life.
Entering politics is seen as an opportunity to make money and share the spoils with the favoured. Politicians are, therefore, confident that there is a well-defined niche for them in society. It is, therefore, unfair to liken politicians to cancer. Perhaps the metaphor of the parasite is more appropriate. A parasite feeds off its host and steadily weakens it. The host often does not recognise this debilitating effect as it has also morphed in the meantime in keeping with the powerful imperatives of the parasite. The parasite grows thicker and stronger, taking over the host, and soon host and parasite are indistinguishable. In time the host becomes dependent on the parasite and is scared to strive for the sun by itself. Thus do the host and parasite live on in interdependency which, as memory begins to fade, appears as if it were a law of nature.
To reiterate, if politicians were truly cancerous there would be hope as society would fight back as does the cancer patient. But when politicians become parasites, the will to be free and independent of them is sapped at the core. We in India have not only given in to politicians, but aspire to imitate them whenever we can. We want favours from them, at the same time patronising those below us, all in the name of pragmatism. If politicians today thrive as parasites we must recognise that this is because we have become their willing hosts. If they were like cancer we would still have our dignity intact, and we could still look forward to a life without the disease
Q1. Which of the following best captures the main idea of the passage ?
a. Politicians are like a cancer and they must be fought just the way one fights cancer
b. Politicians are indeed cancer like
c. J.M lyngdohs ‘s diagnosis off the mark
d. none of these
q2. Which of the following is true according to the passage ?
a. The Cancerous growth of politicians is evident
b. Just the way Cancer can be cured and treated the political system also can be cleaned and treated
c. Politicians have characteristics of parasite rather than the cancer
d. none of these
Meaning making
When James Lyngdoh, Chief Election Commissioner, likened Indian politicians to a cancerous growth in society, did he choose his metaphor wisely? Indeed, he too approached the metaphor of cancer guardedly, and qualified it by saying that it was applicable till such time as a cure for this disease was found. Though the political class in this country has united, across party lines, in condemning Mr Lyngdoh, his outburst against politicians has struck a sympathetic chord with a large number of ordinary people, cutting across class and status lines. Cancer is certainly a very evocative metaphor, and the manner in which politicians openly loot the country and help themselves to all kinds of privileges gives Mr Lyngdoh’s statement immediate credibility.
Yet, how right is Mr Lyngdoh? Politicians are indeed like cancer as they refuse to behave normally. They create corruption, and more corruption wherever they go and with whatever they touch. They thrive on good cells and outwit them with their cunning wiles. They tend to multiply rapidly and spread irrevocably throughout the body, knowing no limits, respecting no organ. Politicians are just too strong for the meek resistance that some organisations mount against them from time to time.
This is because politicians always unite when it comes to anybody threatening their privileges. All parties happily agreed to give their MPs pensions for life and other lifetime privileges such as free travel. While they are serving their terms they often run up enormous telephone and electricity bills, and as Mr Lyngdoh has pointed out, use government machinery for party purposes. Yet, one does not hear any politician condemn these practices. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that once again political parties have united in condemning Mr Lyngdoh for likening them to a cancerous growth. But those touched by cancer would likely find fault with Mr Lyngdoh’s choice of metaphor.
To begin with, a patient stricken by cancer fights back, and it is a glorious fight for it is a struggle for life. Politicians, on the other hand, are rarely opposed by the body on which they feed. For, when it comes to politicians, we all try to curry favour with them. Cancer patients, on the other hand, cast aside every other consideration to channel their resources, meagre though they may be in some cases, in order to regain their health. This is illustrated by the number of instances every day of poor people, and those of modest means, selling what they own in order to buy medicines to cure themselves of cancer. Nothing is as important to them but to kill the malignant cells even if they lose a few good ones in this struggle.
A cancer patient fights back because the body, in which life is enshrined, is too precious to lose. Cancer patients want to regain status quo ante and their health by doing whatever is needed to rid the body of any traces of the disease. They recognise only too well that even one malignant cell can spell ruin. Politicians, however, face little concerted opposition because the body on which they feed is not really an unwilling host. Mr Lyngdoh recognised as much when he said that we show far too much deference and respect to politicians. Cancer cells, on the other hand, no matter what standards are used, are always seen as evil. Nor is every cancer patient terminal. Unlike the stranglehold that politicians have on our society, a cancer can be cured and the body can regain its health. Besides the treatments, which generally include a combination of aggressive therapies, early detection increases the success rate against cancer phenomenally. Conversely, when one detects a politician early it is usually seen as a good future investment. Such a power-monger could become a loyal patron for life.
Entering politics is seen as an opportunity to make money and share the spoils with the favoured. Politicians are, therefore, confident that there is a well-defined niche for them in society. It is, therefore, unfair to liken politicians to cancer. Perhaps the metaphor of the parasite is more appropriate. A parasite feeds off its host and steadily weakens it. The host often does not recognise this debilitating effect as it has also morphed in the meantime in keeping with the powerful imperatives of the parasite. The parasite grows thicker and stronger, taking over the host, and soon host and parasite are indistinguishable. In time the host becomes dependent on the parasite and is scared to strive for the sun by itself. Thus do the host and parasite live on in interdependency which, as memory begins to fade, appears as if it were a law of nature.
To reiterate, if politicians were truly cancerous there would be hope as society would fight back as does the cancer patient. But when politicians become parasites, the will to be free and independent of them is sapped at the core. We in India have not only given in to politicians, but aspire to imitate them whenever we can. We want favours from them, at the same time patronising those below us, all in the name of pragmatism. If politicians today thrive as parasites we must recognise that this is because we have become their willing hosts. If they were like cancer we would still have our dignity intact, and we could still look forward to a life without the disease
1.c
2.c
1)b. Politicians are indeed cancer like
2)c. Politicians have characteristics of parasite rather than the cancer
both C.
1.c
2.c
1.c
2.c
1-c
2-c
1 – c
2 – c
1-c
2-c
1-c
2-c
1-c
2-c.
1. c
2. c
1-c
2-c
1. c
2. c
1.B
2.C
1.c
2.c
1.c
2.c
1.c
2.c
1. C
2. C
1.c
1.c
c,c
1. C
2. C
1. c
2. c