GATE 2023 Humanities & Social Sciences- Sociology Question Paper PDF with Answer Key and Solutions PDF(Available)- Download Here

Goal: Convert the direct speech to reported (indirect) speech with correct tense, pronoun, and time expression.


Step 1: Identify the reporting verb and decide on backshift

Reporting clause: \emph{Rafi told Mary.

The reporting verb \emph{told is in the simple past. For ordinary statements (not universal truths), English backshifts the tense of what was said.

Present Continuous \(\Rightarrow\) Past Continuous.


Step 2: Map pronouns and deictic (time) words

Speaker in quotes = \emph{Rafi; therefore “\emph{I” \(\Rightarrow\) “\emph{he”.

“This weekend” is deictic (relative to the moment of speaking) \(\Rightarrow\) “\emph{that weekend” in reported speech.


Step 3: Apply tense conversion

Direct: \emph{am thinking (Present Continuous) \(\Rightarrow\) Past Continuous \emph{was thinking.


Step 4: Assemble the indirect sentence

Use the conjunction “that” (optional but standard in exams), remove quotation marks, keep the prepositional phrase “of watching a film”:
\[ \boxed{Rafi told Mary that he was thinking of watching a film that weekend.} \]

Step 5: Eliminate distractors

(A) \emph{thought = Simple Past (loses the “continuous/ongoing” meaning) \(\Rightarrow\) incorrect.

(B) \emph{is thinking keeps Present Continuous (no backshift) \(\Rightarrow\) incorrect with a past reporting verb.

(C) \emph{am thinking wrong pronoun and tense (“am” with “he” is ungrammatical) \(\Rightarrow\) incorrect.
Quick Tip: Reported speech checklist: (1) backshift tense if the reporting verb is past; (2) change pronouns from speaker’s point of view; (3) shift time/place words (\emph{this} \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{that}, \emph{now} \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{then}, \emph{here} \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{there}); (4) remove quotes and use “that”.

Understanding the analogy format

“A : B :: C : D” means “A is to B as C is to D” — the relationship between the first pair must \emph{match the relationship between the second.

Here, \emph{Enforce : Relax are antonyms (opposites): to \emph{enforce is to compel; to \emph{relax is to make less strict.


Step 1: Determine the needed relation for the first pair

We must choose a word so that \emph{Permit : ( ? ) forms an antonym pair, mirroring \emph{Enforce : Relax.


Step 2: Evaluate each option against “permit”

(A) Allow — near-synonym of \emph{permit (same meaning), not an antonym \(\Rightarrow\) reject.

(B) Forbid — direct antonym of \emph{permit (permit = allow; forbid = prohibit) \(\Rightarrow\) fits.

(C) License — also a synonym/closely related (to grant permission) \(\Rightarrow\) reject.

(D) Reinforce — means strengthen/support; not the opposite of \emph{permit, and pairs conceptually with \emph{enforce rather than \emph{relax \(\Rightarrow\) reject.


Step 3: State the completed analogy
\[ \boxed{Permit : Forbid :: Enforce : Relax} \] Quick Tip: In analogy questions, first identify the relation in the given pair (synonym, antonym, degree, cause–effect, part–whole, etc.). Then enforce the \emph{same} relation on the missing pair. Watch for distractors that are synonyms when you need antonyms (or vice versa).

Step 1: Identify sample space per roll.

A fair die has 6 equally likely outcomes, so for any specified face \(k\in\{1,\dots,6\}\), \(P(roll=k)=\dfrac{1}{6}\).


Step 2: Compute each required single-roll probability.
\(P(first roll = 1)=\dfrac{1}{6}\), \quad \(P(second roll = 4)=\dfrac{1}{6}\).


Step 3: Use independence of successive rolls.

The two rolls are independent, so the joint probability equals the product:
\[ P(first=1 \ AND\ second=4)=\frac{1}{6}\times\frac{1}{6}=\frac{1}{36}. \]
\[ \boxed{\dfrac{1}{36}} \] Quick Tip: For multiple independent events, multiply individual probabilities for “AND” questions. If it had been “OR”, use addition with inclusion–exclusion.

Step 1: Key facts from the passage.

65% of tobacco users were advised to stop.
30% (3 out of 10) attempted to stop using tobacco.


Step 2: Eliminate impossible options.

(C) and (D) both talk about \emph{successful quitting, but the passage only mentions \emph{attempts, not success. So (C) and (D) cannot be inferred.
(A) claims that a majority of those advised attempted to stop. But overall only 30% of users attempted, which is \emph{less than half of the total users, and certainly less than the 65% who were advised. So it is impossible that a majority of the advised group attempted to stop.


Step 3: Verify option (B).
If 65% were advised and only 30% attempted overall, then even if \emph{all attempts came from the advised group, at most \(30%\) of total users attempted compared to \(65%\) advised. Thus, less than half of the advised group attempted, meaning a majority did not.
\[ \Rightarrow \boxed{B\ is the only logically certain inference.} \] Quick Tip: Always distinguish between “advised,” “attempted,” and “succeeded.” If the data gives only attempts, we cannot conclude anything about success. Use proportions carefully to test majority vs. minority.

Step 1: Decompose into panels.

Two nearly-vertical segments split the slanted outer quadrilateral into three slanted panels. Two oblique lines traverse all panels. Intersections of \{top, bottom\ with the \{two obliques\ and the \{two verticals\ create repeatable triangular cells.


Step 2: Count unit triangles (smallest).

Each panel cut by the two obliques contains four unit triangles (two up, two down). Therefore \[ N_{unit}=3\times 4=12. \]


Step 3: Count size–2 triangles within a panel.

In each panel, pairs of adjacent unit triangles along an oblique combine to form two larger triangles (one up, one down). Hence \[ N_{size-2, within}=3\times 2=6. \]


Step 4: Count size–2 triangles across panel boundaries.

Across each of the two vertical boundaries, a unit triangle from the left panel can pair with its touching unit from the right panel (both orientations). Thus \[ N_{size-2, across}=2\times 2=4. \]


Step 5: Count the largest spanning triangles.

Using full panel height with both obliques we obtain four additional distinct large triangles (two on the left half, two on the right half): \[ N_{largest}=4. \]


Step 6: Sum without double counting (disjoint constructions).
\[ N_{\triangle}=12+6+4+4=\boxed{24}. \] Quick Tip: Avoid double counting by (i) fixing a scale (unit, 2-unit, spanning) and (ii) counting panel-wise. Alternatively, enumerate by apex: list all triangles from each allowed vertex, then move to the next.

Given rule: Eligible voters \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{completed registration.

New fact: \emph{No Human Sciences (HS) student completed registration by the due date.


Test (iii).

If eligibility requires completion, and HS has \emph{zero completers, then \emph{no HS student can be eligible. Hence any eligible voter must come from a non-HS department. Statement (iii) is certainly true.


Test (i).

(i) claims: “All \emph{ineligible students are certainly HS.” But it is possible that some non-HS students also failed to complete registration and are therefore ineligible. The premise does \emph{not say all non-HS students completed. Thus (i) is not certain (could be false).


Test (ii).

(ii) claims: “No non-HS student failed to complete.” This would mean every non-HS student completed. The premises do not guarantee this; some non-HS students might also have missed the deadline. Hence (ii) is not certain.

\[ \boxed{Only (iii) follows with certainty \Rightarrow Option (D).} \] Quick Tip: In inference questions, separate \emph{necessary} from \emph{sufficient} conditions. Here, “completed registration \(\Rightarrow\) eligible” does \emph{not} imply the converse, and saying “none from HS completed” rules out HS from the eligible set but tells you nothing definite about completion in other departments.

Step 1: Symmetry check.
The graph is \emph{odd, since it is symmetric with a sign change across the origin (\(f(-x)=-f(x)\)). This immediately eliminates (A) and (C), as both always yield non-negative values.


Step 2: Behavior for \(x>0\).
For option (B): \(f(x)=x\,2^{-x}\) for \(x>0\). As \(x\to\infty\), \(2^{-x}\to0\), so \(f(x)\to0^+\). There is a positive maximum near \(x=1/\ln2\approx1.44\), consistent with the positive hump in the graph.


Step 3: Behavior for \(x<0\).
For option (B): \(f(x)=x\,2^{x}\) for \(x<0\). As \(x\to-\infty\), \(2^{x}\to0\), hence \(f(x)\to0^-\). There is a negative minimum near \(x=-1/\ln2\approx-1.44\), consistent with the graph’s left-side dip.


Step 4: Eliminate (D).
Option (D), \(f(x)=x\,2^{-x}\), works fine for \(x>0\) but for \(x<0\), it diverges to \(-\infty\) instead of tending to \(0^-\), which does not match the graph.
\[ \boxed{Hence the correct function is (B) only.} \] Quick Tip: To identify the correct function from a graph: always check symmetry, asymptotic behavior at \(\pm \infty\), and positions of maxima/minima. These eliminate wrong options quickly.

Step 1: Identify the key idea of the passage.

The author emphasizes that cancer is understood in modern times through \emph{metaphors — particularly, cancer is likened to a \emph{machine. Modern cell biology encourages us to use figurative language and imagine the cell as a "molecular machine".


Step 2: Check each option.

- (A) Correctly follows. The passage explains why cancer seems modern, because the metaphors applied to it are modern.
- (B) Correctly follows. The passage explicitly says modern cell biology uses and promotes metaphors of machinery.
- (C) Correctly follows. The passage literally uses the metaphor of a cell as a molecular machine, showing cancer as an automaton.
- (D) Does \emph{not follow. The passage repeatedly states that modern cell biology \emph{does use metaphors (machine analogy). Saying it "never uses figurative language" is the exact opposite of the passage’s meaning.

\[ \boxed{The statement that does NOT follow is (D).} \] Quick Tip: When tackling comprehension questions, look for absolute words like “never” or “always.” They often signal the incorrect option when the passage gives examples to the contrary.

Step 1: Units digit cycle of \(3^n\).

The units digit of \(3^n\) repeats in a cycle of \(4\): \(3,9,7,1\).
Since \(999 \bmod 4 = 3\), we have \(3^{999}\) ending with the same digit as \(3^3=27\).
Thus, \(3^{999}\) ends with 7.

Step 2: Units digit cycle of \(7^n\).

The units digit of \(7^n\) repeats in a cycle of \(4\): \(7,9,3,1\).
Since \(1000 \bmod 4 = 0\), we have \(7^{1000}\) ending with the same digit as \(7^4=2401\).
Thus, \(7^{1000}\) ends with 1.

Step 3: Multiply units digits.
\[ 7 \times 1 = 7 \]
So, the final units digit of \(3^{999}\times 7^{1000}\) is 7.
\[ \boxed{7} \] Quick Tip: Always check repeating cycles of units digits (mod 10). Both \(3\) and \(7\) have cycles of length 4. Reducing exponents mod 4 gives the correct digit quickly.

Setup.

Let the square be \([0,6]\times[0,6]\). The two semi-circles have radius \(r=3\) with centers at \((0,3)\) (left side) and \((3,0)\) (bottom side). Their full circles are \[ C_1:\ x^2+(y-3)^2=9,\qquad C_2:\ (x-3)^2+y^2=9. \]
The shaded region consists of the parts of these semi-circles \emph{excluding their common lens (the lens is white in the figure).


Step 1: Area of the two semi-circles.

Each semi-circle area \(=\tfrac12\pi r^2=\tfrac12\pi(3^2)=\tfrac{9\pi}{2}\).
Sum of two semi-circles: \[ A_{semi-sum}=\frac{9\pi}{2}+\frac{9\pi}{2}=9\pi. \]


Step 2: Area of their overlap (circular lens).

Distance between centers: \[ d=\sqrt{(3-0)^2+(0-3)^2}=3\sqrt{2}. \]
For two equal circles of radius \(r\) and separation \(d\), the overlap area is \[ A_{\cap}=2r^2\cos^{-1}\!\left(\frac{d}{2r}\right)-\frac{d}{2}\sqrt{4r^2-d^2}. \]
Here \(r=3,\ d=3\sqrt{2}\Rightarrow \frac{d}{2r}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\), so \(\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{2}/2)=\frac{\pi}{4}\). Thus \[ A_{\cap}=2(3^2)\left(\frac{\pi}{4}\right)-\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2}\sqrt{36-18} = \frac{18\pi}{4}-\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2}\cdot 3\sqrt{2} = \frac{9\pi}{2}-9. \]


Step 3: Shaded area (union minus the lens twice).

The shaded part is the two semi-circles with the overlap \emph{removed from both, i.e. \[ A_{shaded} = A_{semi-sum} - 2A_{\cap} = 9\pi - 2\!\left(\frac{9\pi}{2}-9\right) = 9\pi - 9\pi + 18 = \boxed{18\ cm^2}. \] Quick Tip: When two equal circles overlap, remember the lens formula \(A_{\cap}=2r^2\cos^{-1}\!\left(\tfrac{d}{2r}\right)-\tfrac{d}{2}\sqrt{4r^2-d^2}\). For “two semi-circles on perpendicular sides”, the centers are \(d=r\sqrt{2}\) apart and the lens simplifies to \(\frac{9\pi}{2}-9\) for \(r=3\).

Step 1: Meaning of “spineless” and “cowardly”

- \emph{Spineless = lacking courage, weak-willed.

- \emph{Cowardly = showing lack of bravery.


Step 2: Check each option

(A) Pusillanimous — literally means “lacking courage,” “cowardly,” “timid.” This directly matches the given clue.

(B) Unctuous — overly flattering, insincere (nothing to do with cowardice).

(C) Obsequious — excessively submissive, sycophantic (close in tone but not exactly cowardly).

(D) Reticent — reserved, silent, not willing to speak (again not cowardly).


Thus, the only correct match is Pusillanimous.

\[ \boxed{Pusillanimous = Spineless + Cowardly} \] Quick Tip: The word \emph{pusillanimous} comes from Latin roots: “pusillus” (very small) + “animus” (spirit), literally “small-spirited.” Perfect synonym for cowardly.

Step 1: Understand the sentence

“The whole family got together ___ Diwali” means the reunion happened \emph{on the occasion of Diwali. We must use the preposition that fits events/festivals.


Step 2: Evaluate options

(A) of Diwali — incorrect usage, not idiomatic in English.

(B) at Diwali — correct idiom. We say “at Christmas,” “at Diwali,” “at Easter,” etc., to refer to festive occasions.

(C) in Diwali — unnatural; “in” is used for months/years (“in October,” “in 2022”), not for festivals.

(D) till Diwali — means “up to Diwali,” changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

\[ \boxed{The whole family got together at Diwali.} \] Quick Tip: Remember: “at” is the standard preposition used for festivals and specific occasions (at Diwali, at Christmas, at the party).

Step 1: Analyze blank (i).

The context says: “Amid this turbulence, there is a factor that stands out positively.” The word “redeeming” fits perfectly as it indicates something positive in an otherwise negative situation.

Step 2: Analyze blank (ii).

The sentence mentions films like \emph{RRR, \emph{KGF 2, and \emph{Pushpa, which were very successful. Hence, “outperformance” is the most suitable choice.

Step 3: Analyze blank (iii).

Traditionally, South Indian films have done well in their own “geographies” (regions). Words like “channels” or “theatres” do not convey regional success. Thus, “geographies” fits best.

Step 4: Analyze blank (iv).

The dubbed versions in Hindi are so successful that their collections are “eclipsing” (surpassing) those of Bollywood counterparts.

Step 5: Eliminate other options.

- (A): “disheartening failure” is opposite in meaning.
- (C): “underperformance” contradicts the idea of success.
- (D): “bombing” and “falling behind” are negative, unsuitable here.

Thus, all four blanks align only with option (B).
\[ \boxed{(B) redeeming, outperformance, geographies, eclipsing} \] Quick Tip: In passage completion, always check tone and context. Positive words align with success stories, while negative words contradict them. Elimination of mismatched tone helps reach the correct answer.

Step 1: Sentence 1 introduces the theme.
“Mobility” is both geographical and social. So the next sentence must expand on how traditional social mobility studies treated society — this is sentence 2.

Step 2: Logical follow-up.
After criticizing the older literature in (2), the author notes that even migration sociology is limited. This is sentence 3.

Step 3: Expanding concern.
Then comes sentence 4, which broadens the scope to flows of people beyond societies (work, asylum, etc.).

Step 4: Transition to objects.
Sentence 5 logically introduces the idea that not only people but also objects are mobile, which prepares the ground for sentence 6.

Step 5: Conclusion.
Sentence 6 then emphasizes the “sociology of objects” and their intersection with people’s flows, completing the passage.
\[ Final sequence: 1 \; \to \; 2 \; \to \; 3 \; \to \; 4 \; \to \; 5 \; \to \; 6 \]

Thus, the correct option is (B) 2, 3, 4, 5. Quick Tip: For jumbled paragraph questions, track the logical flow: - Introductory idea \(\to\) critique of past work \(\to\) elaboration \(\to\) expansion \(\to\) transition \(\to\) conclusion. Checking coherence across transitions ensures the correct sequence.

Step 1: Assume initial population in 2020.

Let the population in 2020 be \(P = 100\).


Step 2: Population in 2021 after 5% increase.
\[ P_{2021} = 100 \times (1 + 0.05) = 105 \]


Step 3: Population in 2022 after 5% decrease.
\[ P_{2022} = 105 \times (1 - 0.05) = 105 \times 0.95 = 99.75 \]


Step 4: Net percentage change from 2020 to 2022.
\[ %\ \Delta P = \frac{99.75 - 100}{100} \times 100 = -0.25% \]

\[ \boxed{-0.25%} \] Quick Tip: Remember that a 5% increase followed by a 5% decrease does not cancel out — it produces a slight net decrease because percentages apply to different bases.

Step 1: Analyze the given set.

Thin, Slim, and Slender are not degree words (like positive–comparative–superlative). Instead, they are near-synonyms with subtle differences in nuance, all pointing to leanness.


Step 2: Check each option.

(A) Fat: Plump: Voluptuous — all related to fullness/heaviness, close in meaning, with nuanced connotations. Correct analogy.

(B) Short: Small: Petite — all linked to small size/dimension, again nuanced synonyms. Correct analogy.

(C) Tall: Taller: Tallest — this is a degree sequence (positive, comparative, superlative), not a synonym group. Not analogous.

(D) Fair: Dark: Wheatish — these are contrasting/opposite skin tones, not synonyms. Not analogous.


\[ \boxed{Correct options: (A) and (B)} \] Quick Tip: When solving synonym-based analogy questions, look for words that belong to the same “semantic field” with subtle shades of meaning, not words showing comparison or opposites.

Step 1: Analyze option (A).
This option suggests assigning permanent responsibility for both healthcare and economy revival to district administrations. While they were actively involved during the crisis, giving them permanent responsibility for all such matters may not be realistic. Such roles are usually coordinated at state/national levels. Hence, (A) is not strongly plausible.


Step 2: Analyze option (B).
A task force to review the post-pandemic measures is both logical and practical. Governments commonly review their response to crises to learn lessons, improve systems, and understand effectiveness. Thus, (B) is highly plausible.


Step 3: Analyze option (C).
A committee to create a future pandemic management program is also very reasonable. Planning ahead by learning from past experiences minimizes losses in life and economy for future emergencies. Hence, (C) is also plausible.


Step 4: Analyze option (D).
Population control as a solution to pandemics is neither directly relevant nor scientifically valid, since pandemics are driven by disease transmission and preparedness, not population size alone. Therefore, (D) is implausible.
\[ \boxed{Thus, the plausible actions are (B) and (C).} \] Quick Tip: In decision-making questions, focus on actions that are logical, realistic, and directly related to the problem. Avoid extreme or unrelated measures like population control for pandemics.

Step 1: Collect XH–B1 inequalities.

From the statements for paper B1: \[ \begin{aligned} (i)\ &Bw < Ct
(ii)\ &Dv > Ct
(iii)\ &Em < Dv,\quad Em > Fu
(iv)\ &Ar < Em,\quad Ar > Fu \end{aligned} \]

Step 2: Chain what we can.

From (iv) and (iii): \(Fu < Ar < Em < Dv\).
From (ii): \(Ct < Dv\).
From (i) and (ii): \(Bw < Ct < Dv\).

Step 3: Decide the topper in B1.

Every candidate is strictly below Dv:
- \(Ct < Dv\) (given), hence \(Bw < Ct < Dv\).

- \(Em < Dv\) (given), and \(Ar < Em\), \(Fu < Ar\).
Therefore, \(\boxed{Dv is the highest in XH–B1}\). Quick Tip: In order-comparison puzzles, segregate constraints by category (here, by paper B1 vs C1), write only the relevant inequalities, then build a single chain. A strict “\(>\)” link from the topper to \emph{each} other candidate certifies the topper.

Let us break down the word GOODMORNING and apply the rules:


1. Vowels rule:

- O is replaced by U (the next vowel).

- O is replaced by U (the next vowel).

- O is replaced by U (the next vowel).

- I is replaced by O (the next vowel).

- I is replaced by O (the next vowel).


2. Consonants rule:

- G is replaced by F (the previous consonant).

- D is replaced by C (the previous consonant).

- M remains M (no previous consonant before M in the alphabet).

- R is replaced by Q (the previous consonant).

- N is replaced by M (the previous consonant).

- N is replaced by M (the previous consonant).

- G is replaced by F (the previous consonant).


Thus, the coded word for GOODMORNING is FUUCLUQMOMF.
Quick Tip: When decoding or encoding based on letter substitutions, break down each character and apply the transformation rules step by step. Keep track of vowels and consonants separately for accuracy.

Step 1: Identify the central idea of the passage

The stranger is described as fundamentally “not an owner of soil.” This metaphor of soil applies both in the \emph{physical sense (ownership of land or fixed place) and in the \emph{psychological/social sense (fixed, organic ties in a community). The stranger is defined by \emph{mobility and lack of rooted connection.

Step 2: Examine each option

(A) Incorrect. Although the stranger may develop charm and significance, the passage clearly says this does not make him an “owner of soil.” Personal charm does not remove the condition of strangeness.


(B) Correct. The stranger, by definition, “is not an owner of soil” in either sense — physical or psychological. This matches the core statement of the passage.


(C) Incorrect. Establishing ties of kinship, locality, or occupation would contradict the very definition of the stranger, who is never “organically connected” with such ties.


(D) Correct. The passage allows a subtle interpretation: physically, one could own soil (in the sense of land), but psychologically/socially, the stranger remains a stranger, not organically tied. Hence, this option also aligns with the text.


Step 3: Final Answer

Both (B) and (D) are consistent with the description in the passage.
\[ \boxed{Correct Assumptions: (B) and (D)} \] Quick Tip: In comprehension passages, carefully distinguish between literal (physical) and figurative (psychological/social) meanings. The “stranger” here is defined by lack of organic ties, regardless of charm or interaction.

Step 1: Decode the family links.

L is the only \emph{son of parents A and S \(\Rightarrow\) L is male; A and S are L’s parents (genders not yet known).

S has one sibling, B.

B is married to L’s \emph{aunt K. If K were S’s sister, B (S’s sibling) would be marrying his own sister — impossible. Hence K is A’s sister (paternal aunt of L). Therefore, B is S’s only sibling and A’s brother-in-law.


Step 2: Use “B is the only son of D”.

Since S and B are siblings and B is the \emph{only son of D, it follows that:
- B is male,
- S cannot be male (otherwise D would have at least two sons, contradicting “only son”).

Therefore, S is female \(\Rightarrow\) S is L’s \emph{mother. Consequently, D is a parent of S, i.e., D is L’s maternal grandparent.


Step 3: Determine which options fit.

From Step 2, the relationship between L and D is always “grandchild \(\leftrightarrow\) maternal grandparent”. The question does not specify D’s gender. Hence both of the following are possible and consistent with the data: \[ (B) Grandchild and Maternal Grandfather,\quad (D) Grandchild and Maternal Grandmother. \]

Why not paternal?

If D were on the paternal side, D would be a parent of A. But D is explicitly the parent of B, who is S’s only sibling; thus D is on \emph{S’s side, not A’s. So (A) and (C) are impossible.
Quick Tip: When you see “only son/daughter,” use it to fix genders and sides of the family. Here “B is the only son of D” forces S to be female, putting D on the maternal side.

The first segment of the sentence is:
1. Consumed multitudes are jostling and shoving inside me.

This implies that the subject is in a crowded or chaotic state.


The last segment of the sentence is:
5. some thirty-two years before anything as obvious, as present, as my clock-ridden, crime-stained birth.

This indicates a time reference, looking back at an event (birth) that occurred thirty-two years ago.
\

Now, we need to arrange segments 2, 3, and 4 to form a coherent thought.

Segment 2: and guided only by the memory of a large white bedsheet with a roughly circular hole some seven inches in diameter cut into the center.
\
Segment 3: clutching at the dream of that holey, mutilated square of linen, which is my talisman, my open-sesame.

Segment 4: I must commence the business of remaking my life from the point at which it really began.


Clearly, segment 2 introduces the guiding memory, and segment 3 further explains it as a "talisman" and "open-sesame," meaning it is a key to the story. Finally, segment 4 follows logically by talking about starting the process of remaking life from this point.


Thus, the correct order of the middle segments is: \[ \boxed{2 - 3 - 4} \] Quick Tip: When dealing with jumbled sentence questions, focus on connecting the subject and the action first, and then find logical transitions that fit the time or context (here, the reference to time in the last segment).

Step 1: Extract claims about “memory’s truth.”

The passage stresses that memory \emph{selects, eliminates, alters, exaggerates, minimizes, glorifies, vilifies and finally \emph{creates its own reality. This presents truth as \emph{constructed by memory and therefore \emph{fallible and slanted. \(\Rightarrow\) Matches (C).


Step 2: Observer–dependence.

“No sane human being ever trusts someone else’s version more than his own” implies truth varies with the observer and is thus \emph{contingent and partial. \(\Rightarrow\) Matches (D).


Step 3: Why (A) and (B) do not follow.

(A) \& (B) appeal to \emph{empiricism/sense verification, but the passage neither mentions empirical testing nor sensory verification as criteria of truth; it focuses on memory’s constructive, subjective nature. Hence they are not supported.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, (C) and (D) only.} \] Quick Tip: When a passage emphasizes selection, alteration, and “own versions,” look for options about \emph{constructed} and \emph{observer-dependent} truth, not empirical verification.

Step 1: Define variables.

Let the number of skilled workers be \(x\). Then unskilled workers \(=100-x\).


Step 2: Set up wage equation.
\[ 40{,}000\,x + 15{,}000\,(100-x) \;=\; 23{,}75{,}000 \]


Step 3: Simplify and solve.
\[ 40{,}000x + 15{,}00{,}000 - 15{,}000x = 23{,}75{,}000 \Rightarrow 25{,}000x = 8{,}75{,}000 \] \[ x = \frac{8{,}75{,}000}{25{,}000} = 35 \]

\[ \boxed{Skilled labour employed = 35} \] Quick Tip: In mixture/wage problems, set one variable for one group, express the other as the complement (here \(100-x\)), and form a single linear cost equation to solve quickly.

Identify the common category: Items (1), (2), (4), and (5) are all names of national currencies.


Lek — currency of Albania.

Zloty — currency of Poland.

Drachma — historical currency of Greece (pre-euro).

Real — currency of Brazil.


Contrast with option (3): Diner (spelled with an \emph{e) is \emph{not a currency; it is an English word meaning a person who dines or a type of casual restaurant. (A currency spelled \emph{Dinar would fit the pattern, but that is \emph{not what is written.)


Therefore, the only item not belonging to the currency category is (3) Diner.

\[ \boxed{Odd word: (3) Diner} \] Quick Tip: Watch for near-homophones or look-alike spellings in “odd one out” questions—\emph{Diner} vs.\ \emph{Dinar} changes the category completely.

Step 1: Recall the origin. The idea of thick description was popularized by anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) to mean richly contextualized accounts that interpret the \emph{meaning of actions within their cultural setting.

Step 2: Eliminate distractors. Durkheim and Parsons are linked to functionalism; Dumont to Indian social structure and holism. None of them coined or elaborated \emph{thick description.

Therefore, the correct option is \fbox{(B) Clifford Geertz.
Quick Tip: Think \textbf{interpretive anthropology} \(\Rightarrow\) \textbf{Geertz} \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{thick description} (meaning-rich, context-heavy accounts).

Step 1: Meaning of transpersonal replicability. \emph{Transpersonal (or intersubjective) \emph{replicability means that results do not depend on one specific researcher; independent investigators using the same methods and conditions can reproduce the findings.

Step 2: Evaluate options.

(A) addresses bias reduction but does not capture the replicability criterion.

(B) concerns ethics and policy, not objectivity.

(C) is desirable conduct yet insufficient for objectivity.

(D) precisely states the replicability requirement \(\Rightarrow\) correct.


Thus, the answer is \fbox{(D).
Quick Tip: Objectivity \(\approx\) \textbf{intersubjective testability}: if others can \textbf{replicate} your findings with the same methods, your result is objective.

Step 1: Nature of a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a tentative, testable statement suggesting a possible relationship between variables. It must be empirically verifiable and open to refutation (falsifiability).


Step 2: Evaluate options.

- (A) is correct: hypotheses often originate as shrewd guesses or tentative explanations.

- (B) is correct: hypotheses typically posit relationships between variables.

- (C) is acceptable: hypotheses are empirical in nature, though not yet foregone conclusions.

- (D) is NOT correct: a hypothesis must allow refutability; if it denies refutability, it ceases to be scientific.


Thus, the correct answer is (D).
Quick Tip: For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be falsifiable, testable, and based on observable evidence.

Step 1: Recall world-systems theory.

Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory divides nations into three categories:

- Core nations (wealthy, industrialized, dominant),

- Periphery nations (poor, dependent, exploited),

- Semi-periphery nations (intermediate, partially industrialized).


Step 2: Eliminate other options.

- (A) Globalization explains global interconnectedness but not this hierarchy.

- (B) Stages of growth (Rostow) describes linear development, not a hierarchical world order.

- (D) Limits to growth (Club of Rome) focuses on sustainability and ecological constraints.


Only (C) directly explains the core–semi-periphery–periphery structure.
Quick Tip: Remember: Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory explains global inequality through a structural hierarchy of core, semi-periphery, and periphery.

Meaning check:

Levirate (from Latin \emph{levir = husband's brother) denotes the practice where a widow marries her deceased husband's brother.

Eliminate distractors:

(A) Polygyny = one man with multiple wives (not widow remarriage).

(B) Endogamy = marrying within one's caste/tribe/community (a group boundary, not the widow–brother rule).

(D) Polyandry = one woman with multiple husbands (not specific to the brother-in-law).

Hence, \fbox{Levirate is correct.
Quick Tip: Remember: \textbf{Levirate} \(\Rightarrow\) widow marries the \emph{levir} (husband’s brother); \textbf{Sororate} \(\Rightarrow\) man marries wife’s sister.

Core idea: Marx used pauperization to denote the worsening economic condition of workers—their real income and living standards decline (absolute or relative impoverishment). Job loss plus price rises directly fit this notion.

Why others are wrong:

(A) \emph{Alienation = estrangement of workers from product, process, others, and self—primarily a \emph{social/psychic loss, not specifically income decline.

(B) \emph{Commodity fetishism = social relations appearing as relations between things—about ideology/appearance, not immediate impoverishment.

(D) \emph{Embourgeoisement = workers adopting middle-class life-styles—opposite of increasing poverty.

Therefore, \fbox{Pauperization best captures the situation.
Quick Tip: Link keywords: \textbf{pauperization} \(\Rightarrow\) material impoverishment; \textbf{alienation} \(\Rightarrow\) estrangement; \textbf{fetishism} \(\Rightarrow\) reification of commodities.

Step 1: Definition of ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism refers to the tendency of individuals or groups to view their own culture as superior and to judge other cultures by the standards of their own.


Step 2: Origin of the term.

The American sociologist William Graham Sumner (W.G. Sumner) first coined the term ‘ethnocentrism’ in his 1906 book {Folkways. He explained it as a universal human tendency leading to in-group loyalty and out-group hostility.


Step 3: Eliminate incorrect options.

- Radcliffe-Brown (A) contributed to structural functionalism, not ethnocentrism.

- Malinowski (B) emphasized functionalism and participant observation in anthropology.

- Garfinkel (D) is known for ethnomethodology, not ethnocentrism.


Thus, the correct answer is (C).
Quick Tip: Ethnocentrism = belief in superiority of one’s culture; coined by W.G. Sumner in 1906.

Step 1: Define positivism.

Positivism, developed by Auguste Comte, is a philosophical approach that asserts that only scientific knowledge derived from empirical observation and logical analysis is valid. It emphasizes the supremacy of science in explaining reality.


Step 2: Eliminate incorrect options.

- (A) Postcolonialism critiques Western dominance, not supremacy of science.

- (B) Neo-Kantianism emphasizes epistemology but not the superiority of science.

- (D) Verstehen (Weber) emphasizes interpretive understanding of social action, not scientific dominance.


Thus, the supremacy of science over non-sciences is attributed to (C) Positivism.
Quick Tip: Positivism = science is supreme, empirical, objective, and the only valid source of knowledge.

Step 1: Recall Merton’s CUDOS norms. Robert K. Merton identified four institutional norms of science: Communism (communalism of knowledge), Universalism (truth is independent of the knower), Disinterestedness (impersonal, non-selfish pursuit), and O\!S = Organized Skepticism (systematic critical scrutiny).

Step 2: Match the blank. The missing fourth is Organized skepticism. Other options do not belong to the canonical set.


Final Answer: (A) Organized skepticism Quick Tip: Mnemonic: \textbf{CUDOS} \(\Rightarrow\) Communism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Organized Skepticism.

Step 1: Identify the theory. Modernization theory (e.g., Rostow, Parsons) argues that poorer countries can achieve convergence by adopting Western capitalist institutions, values, and stages of development.

Step 2: Eliminate alternatives. Postmodern and Subaltern frameworks critique such narratives; Marxist theory emphasizes class conflict and dependency, not emulation of Western capitalism.


Final Answer: (D) Modernization Quick Tip: Think “\textbf{catch up by copying the West}” \(\Rightarrow\) \textbf{Modernization theory}; “\textbf{critique of Western model}” \(\Rightarrow\) postmodern/subaltern; “\textbf{capitalism critique}” \(\Rightarrow\) Marxist.

Step 1: Recall Cohn’s approaches

Cohn discussed British knowledge traditions/approaches such as the administrative, missionary, and orientalist strands used to study/administrate India.

Step 2: Identify the odd option

“Historiographical” is not listed among Cohn’s specific approaches in this classification \Rightarrow not propounded by Cohn.

Final Answer: (D) Historiographical. Quick Tip: Link Cohn with the triad \emph{administrative–missionary–orientalist}; anything outside this set is a likely distractor.

Variance = (Standard deviation)\(^2\) \Rightarrow \(s^2 = (0.3)^2 = 0.09\).

Final Answer: (C) 0.09. Quick Tip: Remember: variance measures squared dispersion; SD is the square root of variance. If one is known, obtain the other by squaring or taking the root.

Step 1: Distinguish the systems.

- Zamindari/Talukdari: Revenue was collected through intermediaries (zamindars/talukdars) who held proprietary rights, while cultivators were tenants with little ownership security.

- Mahalwari: Revenue settled at the village/mahal level with collective responsibility; individual proprietary rights were not primary.

- Ryotwari: Direct settlement between the \emph{state and the \emph{ryot (cultivator); the ryot had recognized occupancy/proprietary rights subject to payment of land revenue.


Step 2: Inference.

Since the question asks where the \emph{individual cultivator had ownership rights, this matches the Ryotwari system. Quick Tip: Remember: \emph{RyoT-Right} — in \textbf{Ryotwari} the ryot gets the right; \textbf{Zamindari/Talukdari} give rights to intermediaries; \textbf{Mahalwari} focuses on village units.

Step 1: Concept.

Jürgen Habermas proposed \emph{reconstructive sciences that aim to uncover universal competencies (e.g., language, moral-practical reasoning) by reconstructing the implicit rules enabling communication and rationality. This idea underpins his theory of communicative action and moral development.


Step 2: Eliminate distractors.

Giddens is known for structuration theory; Bourdieu for habitus/field/capital; Foucault for archaeology/genealogy of power—none frame \emph{reconstructive science. Hence option (A). Quick Tip: Link it: \textbf{Habermas} \(\Rightarrow\) communication, discourse ethics, and \emph{reconstruction} of competencies; not to be confused with Giddens’ structuration or Foucault’s genealogy.

Robert K. Merton proposed theories of the middle range, which bridge narrowly focused hypotheses and very broad “grand” systems (master conceptual schemes). These theories explain a \emph{delimited set of phenomena and are empirically testable, \Rightarrow option \fbox{(A). The other options are perspectives, not the level of theorizing specified in the stem.
Quick Tip: Remember: \textbf{Middle-range} \(=\) between micro hypotheses and grand theory; concrete enough to test, broad enough to generalize.

According to M.N. Srinivas, a dominant caste typically enjoys (i) numerical strength in a locality, (ii) economic power (often via landholding), and (iii) political influence/control. These traits together yield local dominance.

“Membership in militant organizations” is not part of Srinivas’s defining criteria \Rightarrow option \fbox{(D) is NOT a characteristic feature.
Quick Tip: Dominant caste \(\approx\) big in \textbf{numbers}, \textbf{land}/wealth, and \textbf{local political clout}—not about militancy.

Step 1: Weber’s classification of social action.

Max Weber classified social action into four types: traditional, affective (emotive), value-rational, and goal-rational (zweckrational).


Step 2: Meaning of instrumental (goal-rational) rationality.

Instrumental rationality (zweckrational) means action oriented towards the most efficient means to achieve a specific goal, considering costs, benefits, and consequences. It is also called "goal-rational action."


Step 3: Eliminate other options.

- (A) Traditional action = guided by customs, not instrumental reasoning.

- (B) Emotive action = guided by emotions, not rational calculation.

- (D) Value-rational action = guided by values or beliefs, regardless of consequences.


Thus, instrumental rationality corresponds to (C) Goal-rational action.
Quick Tip: Remember Weber: Instrumental rationality = efficiency towards goals, Value-rational = guided by values, Traditional = customs, Affective = emotions.

Step 1: Alex Inkeles’ idea of ‘modern man.’

Alex Inkeles described the traits of a "modern man" based on modernization theory. Traits include: openness to new experiences, belief in science and technology, participation in politics, and rejection of blind adherence to tradition.


Step 2: Evaluate options.

- (A) Openness to new experiences → a key trait of modern man.

- (B) Freedom from traditional authority → another defining feature.

- (D) Belief in science and technology → central to modernization.

- (C) Rejection of activities in civil politics → this is not true, since modern men are expected to participate more actively in civic and political activities.


Thus, the correct answer is (C).
Quick Tip: Inkeles’ “modern man” supports democracy, science, rationality, and political participation — not rejection of civic engagement.

Step 1: Identify the concept. In qualitative methodology, reflexivity/self-reflexivity is the practice of critically examining how the researcher’s biography, standpoint, and role shape data collection and interpretation.

Step 2: Eliminate distractors. Social interactionism is a theoretical lens; objectivity is an ideal of neutrality; participant action research is a collaborative design—not the meta-analytic stance described. Hence, (A) fits precisely.


Final Answer: (A) Quick Tip: “Who I am affects what I see” \(\Rightarrow\) think \textbf{self-reflexivity}.

Step 1: Recall definition. Hegemony (Gramsci) is the cultural–ideological leadership by which dominant groups secure the \emph{consent of the governed; people internalize prevailing norms even when these norms work against their interests.

Step 2: Why others don’t fit. Marx’s \emph{alienation concerns estrangement in production; Foucault’s \emph{governmentality is about techniques of governing; Putnam’s \emph{social capital denotes networks/trust. None capture the consent-through-ideology mechanism as directly as hegemony.


Final Answer: (C) Quick Tip: Think “\textbf{consent through culture/ideology}” \(\Rightarrow\) \textbf{Gramsci’s hegemony}.

Step 1: Identify the sampling mechanism described

The description involves \emph{referrals: initial eligible participants recommend other eligible participants. This is the hallmark of snowball (chain-referral) sampling.


Step 2: Eliminate distractors

(A) Random sampling: every unit has known, equal probability—no referrals.

(B) Stratified random sampling: population split into strata, then random samples within strata—no referral chain.

(C) Purposive sampling: researcher intentionally selects cases for specific characteristics, but not via participant referrals.


Final Answer: (D) Snowball sampling. Quick Tip: Think “referrals for rare/hidden populations” \Rightarrow snowball sampling. Random/stratified use probability selection; purposive uses researcher judgment without referrals.

A) Karl Marx \(\rightarrow\) I (Opiate of the people). Marx viewed religion as ideology that dulls class suffering.

B) Max Weber \(\rightarrow\) III (Source of capitalist outlook). Weber’s \emph{Protestant Ethic links religious ideas to the spirit of capitalism.

C) Clifford Geertz \(\rightarrow\) IV (A cultural system). Geertz defines religion as a system of symbols that shapes meaning.

D) Emile Durkheim \(\rightarrow\) II (Sources of social solidarity). Durkheim emphasized religion’s role in collective conscience and cohesion.


Final Answer: Option (D). Quick Tip: Match keywords: Marx–\emph{opiate}; Weber–\emph{Protestant ethic/capitalism}; Geertz–\emph{symbols/cultural system}; Durkheim–\emph{solidarity/collective conscience}.

Step 1: Recall Denzin’s classic four.

Denzin (1978) outlined four widely cited kinds of triangulation in the social sciences:

1) \emph{Data triangulation,

2) \emph{Investigator triangulation (multiple researchers),

3) \emph{Theory triangulation (multiple theoretical lenses), and

4) \emph{Methodological triangulation (multiple methods).


Step 2: Fill the blanks.

Hence the blanks must be \emph{investigator and \emph{methodological. \(\Rightarrow\) Option (B). Quick Tip: Mnemonic: \textbf{D-I-T-M} — Data, Investigator, Theory, Method. If an option lists these four, it’s the one.

Step 1: Define the concept.

\emph{Social closure (Weber, later Parkin) describes strategies by which an in-group \(\Rightarrow\) limits entry and monopolizes valued resources (e.g., credentials, licenses, networks) to maintain advantage.


Step 2: Eliminate distractors.

(A) \emph{Social action is a broad term for meaningful action oriented to others.

(B) \emph{Social construction concerns how meanings/reality are produced.

(D) \emph{Social conflict is struggle over resources but not specifically about restricting membership.

Therefore (C) matches the definition. Quick Tip: Think “\textbf{close the door} to keep the goods”: Social \emph{closure} = restricting entry to sustain privilege.

Step 1: Correlation bounds. Pearson’s correlation coefficient \(r\) satisfies \(-1 \le r \le 1\) \Rightarrow lower and upper bounds are \(-1\) and \(1\).

Step 2: Probability bounds. For any event \(A\), probability \(P(A)\) obeys \(0 \le P(A) \le 1\) \Rightarrow bounds are \(0\) and \(1\).

Step 3: Eliminate options. (B) swaps the ranges; (C) gives an impossible range for \(r\); (D) gives an impossible range for probability. Hence \fbox{(A) is correct.
Quick Tip: Think: \textbf{r in [-1, 1]; P in [0, 1]}. Any option outside these closed intervals is invalid.

A) Systematic falsification \(\Rightarrow\) Karl Popper (III): Popper’s demarcation criterion stresses \emph{falsifiability; science advances by trying to refute hypotheses.

B) Systematic verification \(\Rightarrow\) Positivism (IV): Logical/empirical positivism emphasized \emph{verification through observation and confirmation.

C) Consensus \(\Rightarrow\) Thomas Kuhn (I): In Kuhn’s account of \emph{normal science, work proceeds within a shared \emph{paradigm sustained by community consensus.

D) Social fact \(\Rightarrow\) Emile Durkheim (II): Durkheim’s sociology treats \emph{social facts as external and coercive realities to be studied objectively.

Therefore, the correct matching is \fbox{A–III, B–IV, C–I, D–II.
Quick Tip: Link keywords to thinkers: \textbf{Falsification–Popper}; \textbf{Verification–Positivism}; \textbf{Consensus/Paradigm–Kuhn}; \textbf{Social fact–Durkheim}.

Step 1: Match each item.

- Rampura village study → conducted by M.N. Srinivas → (A-II).

- Indology (study of Indian texts and traditions) → associated with Irawati Karve → (B-IV).

- Marxist approach (class, exploitation, state analysis) → A.R. Desai → (C-III).

- Feminist perspective → Sharmila Rege (Dalit feminism, gender analysis) → (D-I).


Step 2: Verify option.

Thus, the correct match is A-II, B-IV, C-III, D-I → Option (B).
Quick Tip: Remember: M.N. Srinivas = Rampura village, Irawati Karve = Indology, A.R. Desai = Marxist, Sharmila Rege = Feminist.

Step 1: Definition of sustainable development.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission, 1987) defined sustainable development as:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”


Step 2: Eliminate incorrect options.

- (A) Refers only to the present, but ignores future sustainability.

- (B) Refers only to the future, but neglects current needs.

- (D) Refers to the past, irrelevant to sustainability.


Only (C) fits the official definition.
Quick Tip: Sustainable development balances present needs with future generations’ rights to resources. Key idea: intergenerational equity.

Step 1: What Jajmani denotes. The Jajmani system describes a web of customary, reciprocal service relations between occupational groups in an Indian village. It prescribes \emph{roles, \emph{rights, and \emph{obligations.

Step 2: Pocock’s emphasis. Pocock highlighted how these ties \emph{regulate the conduct of individuals—each person’s obligations are specified by community norms (regulated individuality). He also stressed the \emph{collective reciprocity of the system that aims at a functional balance of services across groups (egalitarian collectivity in the sense of mutual interdependence rather than status equality).

Step 3: Eliminate distractors. It is not anarchic (rules are explicit), and the point of Pocock’s treatment here is not to frame it as hierarchical collectivity.


Final Answer: (B), (C) Quick Tip: Think of Jajmani as a \emph{rule-governed reciprocity system}: rules \(\Rightarrow\) regulated individuality; reciprocity \(\Rightarrow\) a collective balance of services.

Step 1: Core traits of class. Class stratification is \emph{economically based and \emph{relatively open/fluids; mobility is possible and boundaries are less rigid. Hence (A) and (C) \emph{are characteristics.

Step 2: What does \emph{not} describe class. (B) describes \emph{caste (ascribed, life-long status). (D) also refers to \emph{caste logics of purity–pollution. Therefore these are not features of class.


Final Answer: (B), (D) Quick Tip: Class \(\Rightarrow\) achieved, economic, fluid; Caste \(\Rightarrow\) ascribed, ritual (purity–pollution), rigid.

Step 1: Durkheim’s key ideas

Durkheim is associated with \emph{collective effervescence, \emph{collective conscience, \emph{mechanical/organic solidarity, \emph{anomie, and the \emph{cult of the individual. \Rightarrow\ (B) and (C) are by Durkheim.

Step 2: What is not Durkheim’s?

- Collective bargaining concerns labour–management negotiation; it comes from industrial relations/union theory (e.g., Webbs), not Durkheim \Rightarrow\ (A) not his concept.

- Charismatic authority is from Max Weber (typology of authority: traditional, legal–rational, charismatic) \Rightarrow\ (D) not Durkheim.

Final Answer: (A), (D).
Quick Tip: Durkheim \(\Rightarrow\) solidarity, anomie, collective conscience/effervescence. Weber \(\Rightarrow\) charismatic authority. Industrial relations \(\Rightarrow\) collective bargaining.

Step 1: Define relations of production (Marx).

They are the \emph{social relations governing production—\emph{ownership/control of the means of production and the \emph{organizational relations among producers (who commands whom, how tasks are divided, how surplus is appropriated).

Step 2: Test the options

(A) Labour: a \emph{force of production (productive input), not a relation \(\Rightarrow\) No.

(B) Division of labour: an organizational \emph{social relation structuring roles and control in production \(\Rightarrow\) Yes.

(C) Property relations: ownership/tenure rules over means of production—core to relations of production \(\Rightarrow\) Yes.

(D) Capitalism: a \emph{mode of production (system combining forces and relations), not itself a specific relation \(\Rightarrow\) No.

Final Answer: (B), (C).
Quick Tip: Think: \emph{Relations} = ownership + organization (who owns/controls and how work is arranged). Inputs like labour are \emph{forces}; capitalism is a \emph{mode}.

Step 1: Definitions. A cult typically forms around a new revelation, idea, or charismatic leader outside established traditions. A sect is a reformist breakaway from an existing religious organization, retaining much of the parent body’s beliefs but rejecting parts of its practice.

Step 2: Match the blanks. New vision/charisma \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{cult; breakaway from preexisting body \(\Rightarrow\) \emph{sect. Hence (A). Quick Tip: Mnemonic: \textbf{Cult = Create new}; \textbf{Sect = Separate from old}.

Step 1: Rights provided by FRA, 2006. The Act recognizes:

- Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights to \emph{protect, regenerate, conserve and manage community forest resources — matches (A).

- Right to in-situ rehabilitation (including alternative land) for those illegally evicted/displaced — matches (B).

- Conversion/settlement of forest villages to revenue villages — matches (C).

Step 2: Evaluate (D). The Act does \emph{not grant \emph{absolute rights over all natural resources; rights are specific (e.g., MFP, CFR) and regulated. Hence (D) is false. Quick Tip: Think “FRA = Recognize, not privatize.” It secures defined individual and community rights (CFR, MFP, rehab, village conversion) but never absolute control over all forest resources.

Step 1: Historical aim. The 1901 Census (under H.\,H. Risley) launched an Ethnographic Survey to classify India’s castes/tribes and record customs so the colonial state could understand and manage racial–cultural differences in administration \(\Rightarrow\) (A).

Step 2: Eliminate distractors. (B) Legislation could be informed by data but was not the stated purpose. (C) “Protect primitive beliefs” reflects a preservationist stance, not the administrative rationale. (D) Welfare/development actions were not the census objective.

Hence, the correct option is \fbox{(A).
Quick Tip: Link “1901 Census + Risley” with \textbf{classification for colonial administration}, not welfare or legal reform.

Step 1: Identify conflict theorists. Dahrendorf developed authority–conflict analysis; Coser (``The Functions of Social Conflict'') emphasized the constructive roles of conflict. \(\Rightarrow\) (B) and (C).

Step 2: Eliminate distractors. (A) Parsons and (D) Alexander are associated with (neo)functionalism, not conflict theory.

Thus, the pair is \fbox{(B) and (C).
Quick Tip: Remember: \textbf{Conflict theory} \(\Rightarrow\) \textbf{Dahrendorf \& Coser}; \textbf{Functionalism} \(\Rightarrow\) \textbf{Parsons \& Alexander}.

Step 1: Define secularization.

Secularization is the process by which religion loses its influence over social, political, and personal life. It involves decline of religious authority and growth of rationality and scientific outlook.


Step 2: Evaluate options.

- (A) Privatization of religion → an aspect of secularization (religion becomes a private matter).

- (B) Rising level of membership of religious organizations → NOT an aspect, because secularization involves decline, not rise, in religious participation.

- (C) Loss of social and political influence of religious organizations → a central aspect of secularization.

- (D) Belief in magic and supernatural forces → contrary to secularization, which emphasizes rationality and decline of superstition. Hence, NOT an aspect.


Thus, the correct answers are (B) and (D).
Quick Tip: Secularization means religion becomes privatized and loses its public authority; anything indicating growth of religious influence contradicts it.

Step 1: Michel Foucault.

Foucault wrote The Archaeology of Knowledge → M1 – X1 is correct.


Step 2: Pierre Bourdieu.

Bourdieu developed Practice Theory (habitus, field, capital). Hence, M2 – X3 is correct.


Step 3: Wrong matches.

- (B) M2 – X2: Sociological Imagination was coined by C. Wright Mills, not Bourdieu.

- (C) M3 – X2: John Urry worked on mobility and global sociology, not sociological imagination.


Thus, the correct pairs are (A) and (D).
Quick Tip: Foucault → Archaeology of Knowledge; Bourdieu → Practice Theory; C. Wright Mills (not listed here) → Sociological Imagination.

Step 1: Definitions.

\quad • Hypergamy: marrying \emph{up in status (typically the bride marries into a \emph{higher-status groom’s family).

\quad • Hypogamy: marrying \emph{down in status (the bride marries into a \emph{lower-status groom’s family).

\quad • Exogamy: marriage \emph{outside one’s group (caste/sub-caste, clan, etc.).

\quad • Polygyandry: group marriage—several men to several women.


Step 2: Evaluate statements.

(A) says in hypergamy the \emph{bride’s family is superior to the groom’s—this reverses the definition (should be the groom’s side superior). Incorrect.

(B) says in hypogamy the \emph{groom’s family is superior—this actually describes hypergamy. Incorrect.

(C) matches exogamy exactly. Correct.

(D) describes group marriage (polygyandry). Correct.


Final Answer: (A), (B) Quick Tip: Remember: \textbf{hyper} = up (bride marries higher); \textbf{hypo} = down; \textbf{exo} = outside the group; \textbf{polygyandry} = group marriage.