For Daily Job Alert | Join Our Whats App Channel |
For Free Study Material | Join Our Telegram Channel |
Solution :-
ans 1
Solution: Option (2)
Explanation: As per the passage, the author thinks that the move by US to attack Syria because of the ISIS influence in the country and the group taking towns after towns under its control in the country is wrong. This is going to be a dangerous precedent for foreign policy action by any other country in the future. This is explained in option (2) and that is why, it is the right choice among the given options.
ans 2
Solution: Option (4)
Explanation: In the given passage, it is mentioned that the US attack on Syrian soil is because of the attack of ISIS rebels on the country and the country getting into the clutches of the rebel group. On the other hand, it was also seen that Khorasan group was also active in the country though it was a lesser known network. This is mentioned in option (4) and this makes option (4) the right choice among the given options.
ans 3
Solution: Option (4)
Explanation: According to the explanation given by the US government in support of the attacks on Syrian soil, it had to do this since the Syrian government could not protect the citizens from the rebels in its country. That is why, US government had to protect the combined right of the citizens in the country and attack the country. It is mentioned in option (4) and that is why, it is the right choice among the given options.
ans 4
Solution: Option (2)
Explanation: According to the given passage, the US aggression on Syrian soil is a violation of the sovereignty of the country and at the same time, it may also backfire in the future for the US Government. It has given a signal that the strong countries can attack any country and also that this attack may help the existing oppressive regime of Syria. This makes option (2) the right choice among the given options.
ans 5
Solution: Option (3)
Explanation: According to the UN Charter 51, a state action against any non state actor can be justified in case that attack is attributable in some way or the other to the army of the country whose territory is being used by the non state actors for the purpose. In this case, US should have tried to pin the responsibility of attacks on Syrian soil somehow on the Syrian government and its army. This makes option (3) the right choice among the given options.
ans 6
Solution: Option (1)
Explanation: According to the author in the passage, US government has tried to justify its act on the Syrian soil by invoking Article 51 of the United Nations Charter regarding international law. On the other hand, US believe that ISIS is doing wrong on the Syrian soil and the Syrian government does not know the way to tackle the terrorist group. However, according to the Deputy Prime Minister of Syria, the Syrian Government has not supported any kind military action by US on its soil but the US is doing out of its own on the soil. It makes option (1) the only true statement in this regard among the given ones.
ans 7
Solution: Option (5)
Explanation: The given word has been used in the passage in the sense that the US has tried to prevent the attacks of ISIS on the Syrian soil by taking military action against the group in the country. This makes option (5) the right choice among the given options.
ans 8
Solution: Option (1)
Explanation: The word has been used in the passage in the sense that the US attacks on Syrian soil have not bore any fruit and because of these attacks, there has been no change in the ground situation in the country. This makes option (1) the right choice as the synonym of the given word among the given options.
ans 9
Solution: Option (4)
Explanation: The given word in the passage has been used in the sense that somebody was abstaining from doing the duty to protect the citizens of the country from the attacks of the non state actors. This makes option (4) the right choice among the given options as the opposite of the given word.
ans 10
Solution: Option (1)
Explanation: The given word in the passage has been used to indicate that the state should defeat the non state actors in order to reduce the fears of the citizens from getting attacked by them. This makes option (1) the right choice among the given options as the opposite of the word.