Quiz-1

Direction for(Q1-Q4) Read the given passage and answer the following questions : 

The first systems of writing developed and used by the Germanic peoples were runic alphabets. The runes functioned as letters, but they were much more than just letters in the sense in which we today understand the term. Each rune was an ideographic or pictographic symbol of some cosmological principle or power, and to write a rune was to invoke and direct the force for which it stood. Indeed, in every Germanic language, the word “rune” (from Proto-Germanic runo) means both “letter” and “secret” or “mystery,” and its original meaning, which likely predated the adoption of the runic alphabet, may have been simply “(hushed) message.”

Each rune had a name that hinted at the philosophical and magical significance of its visual form and the sound for which it stands, which was almost always the first sound of the rune’s name. For example, the T-rune, called *Tiwaz in the Proto-Germanic language, is named after the god Tiwaz (known as Tyr in the Viking Age). Tiwaz was perceived to dwell within the daytime sky, and, accordingly, the visual form of the T-rune is an arrow pointed upward (which surely also hints at the god’s martial role). The T-rune was often carved as a standalone ideograph, apart from the writing of any particular word, as part of spells cast to ensure victory in battle.

The runic alphabets are called “futharks” after the first six runes (Fehu, Uruz, Thurisaz, Ansuz, Raidho, Kaunan), in much the same way that the word “alphabet” comes from the names of the first two Hebrew letters (Aleph, Beth). There are three principal futharks: the 24-character Elder Futhark, the first fully-formed runic alphabet, whose development had begun by the first century CE and had been completed before the year 400; the 16-character Younger Futhark, which began to diverge from the Elder Futhark around the beginning of the Viking Age (c. 750 CE) and eventually replaced that older alphabet in Scandinavia; and the 33-character Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, which gradually altered and added to the Elder Futhark in England. On some inscriptions, the twenty-four runes of the Elder Futhark were divided into three ættir (Old Norse, “families”) of eight runes each, but the significance of this division is unfortunately unknown.

Runes were traditionally carved onto stone, wood, bone, metal, or some similarly hard surface rather than drawn with ink and pen on parchment. This explains their sharp, angular form, which was well-suited to the medium.

Much of our current knowledge of the meanings the ancient Germanic peoples attributed to the runes comes from the three “Rune Poems,” documents from Iceland, Norway, and England that provide a short stanza about each rune in their respective futharks (the Younger Futhark is treated in the Icelandic and Norwegian Rune Poems, while the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc is discussed in the Old English Rune Poem).

While runologists argue over many of the details of the historical origins of runic writing, there is widespread agreement on a general outline. The runes are presumed to have been derived from one of the many Old Italic alphabets in use among the Mediterranean peoples of the first century CE, who lived to the south of the Germanic tribes. Earlier Germanic sacred symbols, such as those preserved in northern European petroglyphs, were also likely influential in the development of the script.

The earliest possibly runic inscription is found on the Meldorf brooch, which was manufactured in the north of modern-day Germany around 50 CE. The inscription is highly ambiguous, however, and scholars are divided over whether its letters are runic or Roman. The earliest unambiguous runic inscriptions are found on the Vimose comb from Vimose, Denmark and the Øvre Stabu spearhead from southern Norway, both of which date to approximately 160 CE. The earliest known carving of the entire futhark, in order, is that on the Kylver stone from Gotland, Sweden, which dates to roughly 400 CE.

The transmission of writing from southern Europe to northern Europe likely took place via Germanic warbands, the dominant northern European military institution of the period, who would have encountered Italic writing firsthand during campaigns amongst their southerly neighbors. This hypothesis is supported by the association that runes have always had with the god Odin, who, in the Proto-Germanic period, under his original name *Woðanaz, was the divine model of the human warband leader and the invisible patron of the warband’s activities. The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that Odin (“Mercury” in the interpretatio romana) was already established as the dominant god in the pantheons of many of the Germanic tribes by the first century.

From the perspective of the ancient Germanic peoples themselves, however, the runes came from no source as mundane as an Old Italic alphabet. The runes were never “invented,” but are instead eternal, pre-existent forces that Odin himself discovered by undergoing a tremendous ordeal.

1. The word “pantheon” in the passage refers to

The first systems of writing developed and used by the Germanic peoples were runic alphabets. The runes functioned as letters, but they were much more than just letters in the sense in which we today understand the term. Each rune was an ideographic or pictographic symbol of some cosmological principle or power, and to write a rune was to invoke and direct the force for which it stood. Indeed, in every Germanic language, the word “rune” (from Proto-Germanic runo) means both “letter” and “secret” or “mystery,” and its original meaning, which likely predated the adoption of the runic alphabet, may have been simply “(hushed) message.”

Each rune had a name that hinted at the philosophical and magical significance of its visual form and the sound for which it stands, which was almost always the first sound of the rune’s name. For example, the T-rune, called *Tiwaz in the Proto-Germanic language, is named after the god Tiwaz (known as Tyr in the Viking Age). Tiwaz was perceived to dwell within the daytime sky, and, accordingly, the visual form of the T-rune is an arrow pointed upward (which surely also hints at the god’s martial role). The T-rune was often carved as a standalone ideograph, apart from the writing of any particular word, as part of spells cast to ensure victory in battle.

The runic alphabets are called “futharks” after the first six runes (Fehu, Uruz, Thurisaz, Ansuz, Raidho, Kaunan), in much the same way that the word “alphabet” comes from the names of the first two Hebrew letters (Aleph, Beth). There are three principal futharks: the 24-character Elder Futhark, the first fully-formed runic alphabet, whose development had begun by the first century CE and had been completed before the year 400; the 16-character Younger Futhark, which began to diverge from the Elder Futhark around the beginning of the Viking Age (c. 750 CE) and eventually replaced that older alphabet in Scandinavia; and the 33-character Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, which gradually altered and added to the Elder Futhark in England. On some inscriptions, the twenty-four runes of the Elder Futhark were divided into three ættir (Old Norse, “families”) of eight runes each, but the significance of this division is unfortunately unknown.

Runes were traditionally carved onto stone, wood, bone, metal, or some similarly hard surface rather than drawn with ink and pen on parchment. This explains their sharp, angular form, which was well-suited to the medium.

Much of our current knowledge of the meanings the ancient Germanic peoples attributed to the runes comes from the three “Rune Poems,” documents from Iceland, Norway, and England that provide a short stanza about each rune in their respective futharks (the Younger Futhark is treated in the Icelandic and Norwegian Rune Poems, while the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc is discussed in the Old English Rune Poem).

While runologists argue over many of the details of the historical origins of runic writing, there is widespread agreement on a general outline. The runes are presumed to have been derived from one of the many Old Italic alphabets in use among the Mediterranean peoples of the first century CE, who lived to the south of the Germanic tribes. Earlier Germanic sacred symbols, such as those preserved in northern European petroglyphs, were also likely influential in the development of the script.

The earliest possibly runic inscription is found on the Meldorf brooch, which was manufactured in the north of modern-day Germany around 50 CE. The inscription is highly ambiguous, however, and scholars are divided over whether its letters are runic or Roman. The earliest unambiguous runic inscriptions are found on the Vimose comb from Vimose, Denmark and the Øvre Stabu spearhead from southern Norway, both of which date to approximately 160 CE. The earliest known carving of the entire futhark, in order, is that on the Kylver stone from Gotland, Sweden, which dates to roughly 400 CE.

The transmission of writing from southern Europe to northern Europe likely took place via Germanic warbands, the dominant northern European military institution of the period, who would have encountered Italic writing firsthand during campaigns amongst their southerly neighbors. This hypothesis is supported by the association that runes have always had with the god Odin, who, in the Proto-Germanic period, under his original name *Woðanaz, was the divine model of the human warband leader and the invisible patron of the warband’s activities. The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that Odin (“Mercury” in the interpretatio romana) was already established as the dominant god in the pantheons of many of the Germanic tribes by the first century.

From the perspective of the ancient Germanic peoples themselves, however, the runes came from no source as mundane as an Old Italic alphabet. The runes were never “invented,” but are instead eternal, pre-existent forces that Odin himself discovered by undergoing a tremendous ordeal.

Which of the following statements is incorrect?

The first systems of writing developed and used by the Germanic peoples were runic alphabets. The runes functioned as letters, but they were much more than just letters in the sense in which we today understand the term. Each rune was an ideographic or pictographic symbol of some cosmological principle or power, and to write a rune was to invoke and direct the force for which it stood. Indeed, in every Germanic language, the word “rune” (from Proto-Germanic runo) means both “letter” and “secret” or “mystery,” and its original meaning, which likely predated the adoption of the runic alphabet, may have been simply “(hushed) message.”

Each rune had a name that hinted at the philosophical and magical significance of its visual form and the sound for which it stands, which was almost always the first sound of the rune’s name. For example, the T-rune, called *Tiwaz in the Proto-Germanic language, is named after the god Tiwaz (known as Tyr in the Viking Age). Tiwaz was perceived to dwell within the daytime sky, and, accordingly, the visual form of the T-rune is an arrow pointed upward (which surely also hints at the god’s martial role). The T-rune was often carved as a standalone ideograph, apart from the writing of any particular word, as part of spells cast to ensure victory in battle.

The runic alphabets are called “futharks” after the first six runes (Fehu, Uruz, Thurisaz, Ansuz, Raidho, Kaunan), in much the same way that the word “alphabet” comes from the names of the first two Hebrew letters (Aleph, Beth). There are three principal futharks: the 24-character Elder Futhark, the first fully-formed runic alphabet, whose development had begun by the first century CE and had been completed before the year 400; the 16-character Younger Futhark, which began to diverge from the Elder Futhark around the beginning of the Viking Age (c. 750 CE) and eventually replaced that older alphabet in Scandinavia; and the 33-character Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, which gradually altered and added to the Elder Futhark in England. On some inscriptions, the twenty-four runes of the Elder Futhark were divided into three ættir (Old Norse, “families”) of eight runes each, but the significance of this division is unfortunately unknown.

Runes were traditionally carved onto stone, wood, bone, metal, or some similarly hard surface rather than drawn with ink and pen on parchment. This explains their sharp, angular form, which was well-suited to the medium.

Much of our current knowledge of the meanings the ancient Germanic peoples attributed to the runes comes from the three “Rune Poems,” documents from Iceland, Norway, and England that provide a short stanza about each rune in their respective futharks (the Younger Futhark is treated in the Icelandic and Norwegian Rune Poems, while the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc is discussed in the Old English Rune Poem).

While runologists argue over many of the details of the historical origins of runic writing, there is widespread agreement on a general outline. The runes are presumed to have been derived from one of the many Old Italic alphabets in use among the Mediterranean peoples of the first century CE, who lived to the south of the Germanic tribes. Earlier Germanic sacred symbols, such as those preserved in northern European petroglyphs, were also likely influential in the development of the script.

The earliest possibly runic inscription is found on the Meldorf brooch, which was manufactured in the north of modern-day Germany around 50 CE. The inscription is highly ambiguous, however, and scholars are divided over whether its letters are runic or Roman. The earliest unambiguous runic inscriptions are found on the Vimose comb from Vimose, Denmark and the Øvre Stabu spearhead from southern Norway, both of which date to approximately 160 CE. The earliest known carving of the entire futhark, in order, is that on the Kylver stone from Gotland, Sweden, which dates to roughly 400 CE.

The transmission of writing from southern Europe to northern Europe likely took place via Germanic warbands, the dominant northern European military institution of the period, who would have encountered Italic writing firsthand during campaigns amongst their southerly neighbors. This hypothesis is supported by the association that runes have always had with the god Odin, who, in the Proto-Germanic period, under his original name *Woðanaz, was the divine model of the human warband leader and the invisible patron of the warband’s activities. The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that Odin (“Mercury” in the interpretatio romana) was already established as the dominant god in the pantheons of many of the Germanic tribes by the first century.

From the perspective of the ancient Germanic peoples themselves, however, the runes came from no source as mundane as an Old Italic alphabet. The runes were never “invented,” but are instead eternal, pre-existent forces that Odin himself discovered by undergoing a tremendous ordeal.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

a. Runic script was most likely derived from Old Italic script.
b. Runes were not used so much as a simple writing system, but rather as magical signs to be used for charms.
c. In the Proto-Germanic period, the god Tiwaz was associated with war, victory, marriage and the diurnal sky.
d. The knowledge of the meanings attributed to the runes of the Younger Futhark is derived from the three Rune poems.

The first systems of writing developed and used by the Germanic peoples were runic alphabets. The runes functioned as letters, but they were much more than just letters in the sense in which we today understand the term. Each rune was an ideographic or pictographic symbol of some cosmological principle or power, and to write a rune was to invoke and direct the force for which it stood. Indeed, in every Germanic language, the word “rune” (from Proto-Germanic runo) means both “letter” and “secret” or “mystery,” and its original meaning, which likely predated the adoption of the runic alphabet, may have been simply “(hushed) message.”

Each rune had a name that hinted at the philosophical and magical significance of its visual form and the sound for which it stands, which was almost always the first sound of the rune’s name. For example, the T-rune, called *Tiwaz in the Proto-Germanic language, is named after the god Tiwaz (known as Tyr in the Viking Age). Tiwaz was perceived to dwell within the daytime sky, and, accordingly, the visual form of the T-rune is an arrow pointed upward (which surely also hints at the god’s martial role). The T-rune was often carved as a standalone ideograph, apart from the writing of any particular word, as part of spells cast to ensure victory in battle.

The runic alphabets are called “futharks” after the first six runes (Fehu, Uruz, Thurisaz, Ansuz, Raidho, Kaunan), in much the same way that the word “alphabet” comes from the names of the first two Hebrew letters (Aleph, Beth). There are three principal futharks: the 24-character Elder Futhark, the first fully-formed runic alphabet, whose development had begun by the first century CE and had been completed before the year 400; the 16-character Younger Futhark, which began to diverge from the Elder Futhark around the beginning of the Viking Age (c. 750 CE) and eventually replaced that older alphabet in Scandinavia; and the 33-character Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, which gradually altered and added to the Elder Futhark in England. On some inscriptions, the twenty-four runes of the Elder Futhark were divided into three ættir (Old Norse, “families”) of eight runes each, but the significance of this division is unfortunately unknown.

Runes were traditionally carved onto stone, wood, bone, metal, or some similarly hard surface rather than drawn with ink and pen on parchment. This explains their sharp, angular form, which was well-suited to the medium.

Much of our current knowledge of the meanings the ancient Germanic peoples attributed to the runes comes from the three “Rune Poems,” documents from Iceland, Norway, and England that provide a short stanza about each rune in their respective futharks (the Younger Futhark is treated in the Icelandic and Norwegian Rune Poems, while the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc is discussed in the Old English Rune Poem).

While runologists argue over many of the details of the historical origins of runic writing, there is widespread agreement on a general outline. The runes are presumed to have been derived from one of the many Old Italic alphabets in use among the Mediterranean peoples of the first century CE, who lived to the south of the Germanic tribes. Earlier Germanic sacred symbols, such as those preserved in northern European petroglyphs, were also likely influential in the development of the script.

The earliest possibly runic inscription is found on the Meldorf brooch, which was manufactured in the north of modern-day Germany around 50 CE. The inscription is highly ambiguous, however, and scholars are divided over whether its letters are runic or Roman. The earliest unambiguous runic inscriptions are found on the Vimose comb from Vimose, Denmark and the Øvre Stabu spearhead from southern Norway, both of which date to approximately 160 CE. The earliest known carving of the entire futhark, in order, is that on the Kylver stone from Gotland, Sweden, which dates to roughly 400 CE.

The transmission of writing from southern Europe to northern Europe likely took place via Germanic warbands, the dominant northern European military institution of the period, who would have encountered Italic writing firsthand during campaigns amongst their southerly neighbors. This hypothesis is supported by the association that runes have always had with the god Odin, who, in the Proto-Germanic period, under his original name *Woðanaz, was the divine model of the human warband leader and the invisible patron of the warband’s activities. The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that Odin (“Mercury” in the interpretatio romana) was already established as the dominant god in the pantheons of many of the Germanic tribes by the first century.

From the perspective of the ancient Germanic peoples themselves, however, the runes came from no source as mundane as an Old Italic alphabet. The runes were never “invented,” but are instead eternal, pre-existent forces that Odin himself discovered by undergoing a tremendous ordeal.

Which of the following cannot be reasonably inferred with regard to the beliefs of the Proto-Germanic people?

Direction (Q5- Q10) Read the given passage and answer the following questions  :

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) and India Health Report on Nutrition, 2015 (IHR), offer a critical analysis of the state of nutrition in India. The first report, the India Health Report: Nutrition 2015(IHR), provides easy-to-understand, State-wise data dashboards that give a comprehensive view of nutrition and its determinants. It looks at disparities in these outcomes and their multiple determinants across geographical regions, socio-economic classes, and demographic groups to help identify strategic choices for policy-making at the State level.

In turn, GNR assesses progress in reducing malnutrition for all 193 countries. It concludes that while India is on track to meet only two of the eight global targets on nutrition, it has significantly improved its nutrition performance in the past 10 years. GNR notes that there has been a big increase in the number of countries on track to meet global nutrition targets, and encourages countries, including India, to establish specific and time-bound targets for malnutrition reduction that are consistent with the new Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these reports paint several pictures of India, a data-poor country. They portray one of great progress in improving nutrition across India; stunting among children, a marker of the most persistent types of malnutrition, has declined rapidly in the last ten years. And this decline has been faster than in many other countries. But as we dig deeper, there are diverse pictures about the living conditions of Indian children — positive stories about children’s lives and futures in Goa, Kerala, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, but dismal ones in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. What cannot be debated is the reality of deep, systemic inequality; of inequality in the circumstances that children are born into, that they live and grow in. For those of us who are worried about India’s economic growth, these are also pictures of inequality that point to how well these children will be able to contribute to India’s economic growth and their own prosperity. Their poor nutrition stunts more than their bodies. It stunts their well-being, and, consequentially, that of their home states and their nation. Two other things, both related to inequality, stand out as well in the data. First, the data point to tremendous variability across States in delivering what should be universal, rights-based, and already mandated health and nutrition services. For example, sample this for the intra-State disparity. Food provided by the Integrated Child Development Services reaches barely 1 in 5 children in Uttar Pradesh but over 90 percent in Odisha. Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are fully immunized; in Goa, it is more than 90 percent. Close to 80 percent defecate in the open in Odisha; barely 2 percent do so in Kerala. Why?

These are disparities across States that operate in the same national framework, and there is, let’s face it, no good reason for this other than an inability or an unwillingness to invest in changing ground realities, for everyone and everywhere. This is not an insurmountable challenge and it’s certainly an area where States can, if they want it, make a dramatic change in short timeframes. Examples abound from within India. The data in the reports show that, clearly, the imperative for introspection, and looking within for solutions was never clearer. No child should go without basic health care, food security, and things like water and a toilet. Indeed, no adult should either. No society should condone such inequalities in the basics. And no society has progressed without addressing these basics.

Choose the word which is most similar in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage:
Condone

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) and India Health Report on Nutrition, 2015 (IHR), offer a critical analysis of the state of nutrition in India. The first report, the India Health Report: Nutrition 2015(IHR), provides easy-to-understand, State-wise data dashboards that give a comprehensive view of nutrition and its determinants. It looks at disparities in these outcomes and their multiple determinants across geographical regions, socio-economic classes, and demographic groups to help identify strategic choices for policy-making at the State level.

In turn, GNR assesses progress in reducing malnutrition for all 193 countries. It concludes that while India is on track to meet only two of the eight global targets on nutrition, it has significantly improved its nutrition performance in the past 10 years. GNR notes that there has been a big increase in the number of countries on track to meet global nutrition targets, and encourages countries, including India, to establish specific and time-bound targets for malnutrition reduction that are consistent with the new Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these reports paint several pictures of India, a data-poor country. They portray one of great progress in improving nutrition across India; stunting among children, a marker of the most persistent types of malnutrition, has declined rapidly in the last ten years. And this decline has been faster than in many other countries. But as we dig deeper, there are diverse pictures about the living conditions of Indian children — positive stories about children’s lives and futures in Goa, Kerala, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, but dismal ones in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. What cannot be debated is the reality of deep, systemic inequality; of inequality in the circumstances that children are born into, that they live and grow in. For those of us who are worried about India’s economic growth, these are also pictures of inequality that point to how well these children will be able to contribute to India’s economic growth and their own prosperity. Their poor nutrition stunts more than their bodies. It stunts their well-being, and, consequentially, that of their home states and their nation. Two other things, both related to inequality, stand out as well in the data. First, the data point to tremendous variability across States in delivering what should be universal, rights-based, and already mandated health and nutrition services. For example, sample this for the intra-State disparity. Food provided by the Integrated Child Development Services reaches barely 1 in 5 children in Uttar Pradesh but over 90 percent in Odisha. Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are fully immunized; in Goa, it is more than 90 percent. Close to 80 percent defecate in the open in Odisha; barely 2 percent do so in Kerala. Why?

These are disparities across States that operate in the same national framework, and there is, let’s face it, no good reason for this other than an inability or an unwillingness to invest in changing ground realities, for everyone and everywhere. This is not an insurmountable challenge and it’s certainly an area where States can, if they want it, make a dramatic change in short timeframes. Examples abound from within India. The data in the reports show that, clearly, the imperative for introspection, and looking within for solutions was never clearer. No child should go without basic health care, food security, and things like water and a toilet. Indeed, no adult should either. No society should condone such inequalities in the basics. And no society has progressed without addressing these basics.

Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage:
Persistent

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) and India Health Report on Nutrition, 2015 (IHR), offer a critical analysis of the state of nutrition in India. The first report, the India Health Report: Nutrition 2015(IHR), provides easy-to-understand, State-wise data dashboards that give a comprehensive view of nutrition and its determinants. It looks at disparities in these outcomes and their multiple determinants across geographical regions, socio-economic classes, and demographic groups to help identify strategic choices for policy-making at the State level.

In turn, GNR assesses progress in reducing malnutrition for all 193 countries. It concludes that while India is on track to meet only two of the eight global targets on nutrition, it has significantly improved its nutrition performance in the past 10 years. GNR notes that there has been a big increase in the number of countries on track to meet global nutrition targets, and encourages countries, including India, to establish specific and time-bound targets for malnutrition reduction that are consistent with the new Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these reports paint several pictures of India, a data-poor country. They portray one of great progress in improving nutrition across India; stunting among children, a marker of the most persistent types of malnutrition, has declined rapidly in the last ten years. And this decline has been faster than in many other countries. But as we dig deeper, there are diverse pictures about the living conditions of Indian children — positive stories about children’s lives and futures in Goa, Kerala, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, but dismal ones in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. What cannot be debated is the reality of deep, systemic inequality; of inequality in the circumstances that children are born into, that they live and grow in. For those of us who are worried about India’s economic growth, these are also pictures of inequality that point to how well these children will be able to contribute to India’s economic growth and their own prosperity. Their poor nutrition stunts more than their bodies. It stunts their well-being, and, consequentially, that of their home states and their nation. Two other things, both related to inequality, stand out as well in the data. First, the data point to tremendous variability across States in delivering what should be universal, rights-based, and already mandated health and nutrition services. For example, sample this for the intra-State disparity. Food provided by the Integrated Child Development Services reaches barely 1 in 5 children in Uttar Pradesh but over 90 percent in Odisha. Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are fully immunized; in Goa, it is more than 90 percent. Close to 80 percent defecate in the open in Odisha; barely 2 percent do so in Kerala. Why?

These are disparities across States that operate in the same national framework, and there is, let’s face it, no good reason for this other than an inability or an unwillingness to invest in changing ground realities, for everyone and everywhere. This is not an insurmountable challenge and it’s certainly an area where States can, if they want it, make a dramatic change in short timeframes. Examples abound from within India. The data in the reports show that, clearly, the imperative for introspection, and looking within for solutions was never clearer. No child should go without basic health care, food security, and things like water and a toilet. Indeed, no adult should either. No society should condone such inequalities in the basics. And no society has progressed without addressing these basics.

Which of the following would be a suitable title?

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) and India Health Report on Nutrition, 2015 (IHR), offer a critical analysis of the state of nutrition in India. The first report, the India Health Report: Nutrition 2015(IHR), provides easy-to-understand, State-wise data dashboards that give a comprehensive view of nutrition and its determinants. It looks at disparities in these outcomes and their multiple determinants across geographical regions, socio-economic classes, and demographic groups to help identify strategic choices for policy-making at the State level.

In turn, GNR assesses progress in reducing malnutrition for all 193 countries. It concludes that while India is on track to meet only two of the eight global targets on nutrition, it has significantly improved its nutrition performance in the past 10 years. GNR notes that there has been a big increase in the number of countries on track to meet global nutrition targets, and encourages countries, including India, to establish specific and time-bound targets for malnutrition reduction that are consistent with the new Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these reports paint several pictures of India, a data-poor country. They portray one of great progress in improving nutrition across India; stunting among children, a marker of the most persistent types of malnutrition, has declined rapidly in the last ten years. And this decline has been faster than in many other countries. But as we dig deeper, there are diverse pictures about the living conditions of Indian children — positive stories about children’s lives and futures in Goa, Kerala, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, but dismal ones in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. What cannot be debated is the reality of deep, systemic inequality; of inequality in the circumstances that children are born into, that they live and grow in. For those of us who are worried about India’s economic growth, these are also pictures of inequality that point to how well these children will be able to contribute to India’s economic growth and their own prosperity. Their poor nutrition stunts more than their bodies. It stunts their well-being, and, consequentially, that of their home states and their nation. Two other things, both related to inequality, stand out as well in the data. First, the data point to tremendous variability across States in delivering what should be universal, rights-based, and already mandated health and nutrition services. For example, sample this for the intra-State disparity. Food provided by the Integrated Child Development Services reaches barely 1 in 5 children in Uttar Pradesh but over 90 percent in Odisha. Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are fully immunized; in Goa, it is more than 90 percent. Close to 80 percent defecate in the open in Odisha; barely 2 percent do so in Kerala. Why?

These are disparities across States that operate in the same national framework, and there is, let’s face it, no good reason for this other than an inability or an unwillingness to invest in changing ground realities, for everyone and everywhere. This is not an insurmountable challenge and it’s certainly an area where States can, if they want it, make a dramatic change in short timeframes. Examples abound from within India. The data in the reports show that, clearly, the imperative for introspection, and looking within for solutions was never clearer. No child should go without basic health care, food security, and things like water and a toilet. Indeed, no adult should either. No society should condone such inequalities in the basics. And no society has progressed without addressing these basics.

What is NOT TRUE according to the above passage?

I.Food provided by ICDS reaches only a few children in UP.
II.Nearly 80 percent defecate in the open in West Bengal.
III.Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are immunized.

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) and India Health Report on Nutrition, 2015 (IHR), offer a critical analysis of the state of nutrition in India. The first report, the India Health Report: Nutrition 2015(IHR), provides easy-to-understand, State-wise data dashboards that give a comprehensive view of nutrition and its determinants. It looks at disparities in these outcomes and their multiple determinants across geographical regions, socio-economic classes, and demographic groups to help identify strategic choices for policy-making at the State level.

In turn, GNR assesses progress in reducing malnutrition for all 193 countries. It concludes that while India is on track to meet only two of the eight global targets on nutrition, it has significantly improved its nutrition performance in the past 10 years. GNR notes that there has been a big increase in the number of countries on track to meet global nutrition targets, and encourages countries, including India, to establish specific and time-bound targets for malnutrition reduction that are consistent with the new Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these reports paint several pictures of India, a data-poor country. They portray one of great progress in improving nutrition across India; stunting among children, a marker of the most persistent types of malnutrition, has declined rapidly in the last ten years. And this decline has been faster than in many other countries. But as we dig deeper, there are diverse pictures about the living conditions of Indian children — positive stories about children’s lives and futures in Goa, Kerala, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, but dismal ones in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. What cannot be debated is the reality of deep, systemic inequality; of inequality in the circumstances that children are born into, that they live and grow in. For those of us who are worried about India’s economic growth, these are also pictures of inequality that point to how well these children will be able to contribute to India’s economic growth and their own prosperity. Their poor nutrition stunts more than their bodies. It stunts their well-being, and, consequentially, that of their home states and their nation. Two other things, both related to inequality, stand out as well in the data. First, the data point to tremendous variability across States in delivering what should be universal, rights-based, and already mandated health and nutrition services. For example, sample this for the intra-State disparity. Food provided by the Integrated Child Development Services reaches barely 1 in 5 children in Uttar Pradesh but over 90 percent in Odisha. Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are fully immunized; in Goa, it is more than 90 percent. Close to 80 percent defecate in the open in Odisha; barely 2 percent do so in Kerala. Why?

These are disparities across States that operate in the same national framework, and there is, let’s face it, no good reason for this other than an inability or an unwillingness to invest in changing ground realities, for everyone and everywhere. This is not an insurmountable challenge and it’s certainly an area where States can, if they want it, make a dramatic change in short timeframes. Examples abound from within India. The data in the reports show that, clearly, the imperative for introspection, and looking within for solutions was never clearer. No child should go without basic health care, food security, and things like water and a toilet. Indeed, no adult should either. No society should condone such inequalities in the basics. And no society has progressed without addressing these basics.

The Global Nutrition Report focuses mainly on the :

The Global Nutrition Report (GNR) and India Health Report on Nutrition, 2015 (IHR), offer a critical analysis of the state of nutrition in India. The first report, the India Health Report: Nutrition 2015(IHR), provides easy-to-understand, State-wise data dashboards that give a comprehensive view of nutrition and its determinants. It looks at disparities in these outcomes and their multiple determinants across geographical regions, socio-economic classes, and demographic groups to help identify strategic choices for policy-making at the State level.

In turn, GNR assesses progress in reducing malnutrition for all 193 countries. It concludes that while India is on track to meet only two of the eight global targets on nutrition, it has significantly improved its nutrition performance in the past 10 years. GNR notes that there has been a big increase in the number of countries on track to meet global nutrition targets, and encourages countries, including India, to establish specific and time-bound targets for malnutrition reduction that are consistent with the new Sustainable Development Goals. Together, these reports paint several pictures of India, a data-poor country. They portray one of great progress in improving nutrition across India; stunting among children, a marker of the most persistent types of malnutrition, has declined rapidly in the last ten years. And this decline has been faster than in many other countries. But as we dig deeper, there are diverse pictures about the living conditions of Indian children — positive stories about children’s lives and futures in Goa, Kerala, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu, but dismal ones in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. What cannot be debated is the reality of deep, systemic inequality; of inequality in the circumstances that children are born into, that they live and grow in. For those of us who are worried about India’s economic growth, these are also pictures of inequality that point to how well these children will be able to contribute to India’s economic growth and their own prosperity. Their poor nutrition stunts more than their bodies. It stunts their well-being, and, consequentially, that of their home states and their nation. Two other things, both related to inequality, stand out as well in the data. First, the data point to tremendous variability across States in delivering what should be universal, rights-based, and already mandated health and nutrition services. For example, sample this for the intra-State disparity. Food provided by the Integrated Child Development Services reaches barely 1 in 5 children in Uttar Pradesh but over 90 percent in Odisha. Less than 33 percent of children in Nagaland are fully immunized; in Goa, it is more than 90 percent. Close to 80 percent defecate in the open in Odisha; barely 2 percent do so in Kerala. Why?

These are disparities across States that operate in the same national framework, and there is, let’s face it, no good reason for this other than an inability or an unwillingness to invest in changing ground realities, for everyone and everywhere. This is not an insurmountable challenge and it’s certainly an area where States can, if they want it, make a dramatic change in short timeframes. Examples abound from within India. The data in the reports show that, clearly, the imperative for introspection, and looking within for solutions was never clearer. No child should go without basic health care, food security, and things like water and a toilet. Indeed, no adult should either. No society should condone such inequalities in the basics. And no society has progressed without addressing these basics.

Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage:
Mandate