CUET English 2023 PYQs18 June Shift 1. Free, no login required.

Unquestionably a literary life is for the most part an unhappy life; because, if you have genius, you must suffer the penalty of genius; and if you have only talent, there are so many cares and worries incidental to the circumstances of men of letters, as to make life exceedingly miserable. Besides the pangs of composition, and the continuous disappointment which a true artist feels at his inability to reveal himself, there is the ever-recurring difficulty of gaining the public ear. Young writers are buoyed up by the hope and the belief that they have only to print to be acknowledged at once as a new light in literature. You can never convince a young author that the editors of magazines and the publishers of books are a practical body of men, who are by no means frantically anxious about placing the best literature before the public. Nay, that for the most part they are mere brokers, who conduct their business on the hardest lines of a Profit and Loss account. But supposing your book fairly launches, its perils are only beginning. You have to run the gauntlet of the critics. To a young author, again, this seems to be as terrible on ordeal as passing down the files of Sioux or Comanche Indians, each one of whom is thirsting for your scalp. When you are a little older, you will find that criticism is not much more serious that the bye-play of clowns in a circus, when they beat around the ring the victim with bladders slung at the end of long poles. A time comes in the life of every author when he regards critics as comical rather than formidable, and goes his way unheeding. But there are sensitive souls that yield under the chastisement and, perhaps after suffering much silent torture, abandon the profession of the pen for ever, Keats, perhaps, is the saddest example of a fine spirit hounded to death by savage criticism; because, whatever his biographers may aver, that furious attack of Gifford and Terry undoubtedly expediated his death. But no doubt there are hundreds who suffer keenly hostile and unscrupulous criticism, and who have to bear that suffering in silence, because it is a cardinal principle in literature that the most unwise thing in the world for an author is to take public notice of criticism in the way of defending himself. Silence is the only safeguard, as it is the only dignified protest against insult and offence.

Unquestionably a literary life is for the most part an unhappy life; because, if you have genius, you must suffer the penalty of genius; and if you have only talent, there are so many cares and worries incidental to the circumstances of men of letters, as to make life exceedingly miserable. Besides the pangs of composition, and the continuous disappointment which a true artist feels at his inability to reveal himself, there is the ever-recurring difficulty of gaining the public ear. Young writers are buoyed up by the hope and the belief that they have only to print to be acknowledged at once as a new light in literature. You can never convince a young author that the editors of magazines and the publishers of books are a practical body of men, who are by no means frantically anxious about placing the best literature before the public. Nay, that for the most part they are mere brokers, who conduct their business on the hardest lines of a Profit and Loss account. But supposing your book fairly launches, its perils are only beginning. You have to run the gauntlet of the critics. To a young author, again, this seems to be as terrible on ordeal as passing down the files of Sioux or Comanche Indians, each one of whom is thirsting for your scalp. When you are a little older, you will find that criticism is not much more serious that the bye-play of clowns in a circus, when they beat around the ring the victim with bladders slung at the end of long poles. A time comes in the life of every author when he regards critics as comical rather than formidable, and goes his way unheeding. But there are sensitive souls that yield under the chastisement and, perhaps after suffering much silent torture, abandon the profession of the pen for ever, Keats, perhaps, is the saddest example of a fine spirit hounded to death by savage criticism; because, whatever his biographers may aver, that furious attack of Gifford and Terry undoubtedly expediated his death. But no doubt there are hundreds who suffer keenly hostile and unscrupulous criticism, and who have to bear that suffering in silence, because it is a cardinal principle in literature that the most unwise thing in the world for an author is to take public notice of criticism in the way of defending himself. Silence is the only safeguard, as it is the only dignified protest against insult and offence.

Unquestionably a literary life is for the most part an unhappy life; because, if you have genius, you must suffer the penalty of genius; and if you have only talent, there are so many cares and worries incidental to the circumstances of men of letters, as to make life exceedingly miserable. Besides the pangs of composition, and the continuous disappointment which a true artist feels at his inability to reveal himself, there is the ever-recurring difficulty of gaining the public ear. Young writers are buoyed up by the hope and the belief that they have only to print to be acknowledged at once as a new light in literature. You can never convince a young author that the editors of magazines and the publishers of books are a practical body of men, who are by no means frantically anxious about placing the best literature before the public. Nay, that for the most part they are mere brokers, who conduct their business on the hardest lines of a Profit and Loss account. But supposing your book fairly launches, its perils are only beginning. You have to run the gauntlet of the critics. To a young author, again, this seems to be as terrible on ordeal as passing down the files of Sioux or Comanche Indians, each one of whom is thirsting for your scalp. When you are a little older, you will find that criticism is not much more serious that the bye-play of clowns in a circus, when they beat around the ring the victim with bladders slung at the end of long poles. A time comes in the life of every author when he regards critics as comical rather than formidable, and goes his way unheeding. But there are sensitive souls that yield under the chastisement and, perhaps after suffering much silent torture, abandon the profession of the pen for ever, Keats, perhaps, is the saddest example of a fine spirit hounded to death by savage criticism; because, whatever his biographers may aver, that furious attack of Gifford and Terry undoubtedly expediated his death. But no doubt there are hundreds who suffer keenly hostile and unscrupulous criticism, and who have to bear that suffering in silence, because it is a cardinal principle in literature that the most unwise thing in the world for an author is to take public notice of criticism in the way of defending himself. Silence is the only safeguard, as it is the only dignified protest against insult and offence.

Unquestionably a literary life is for the most part an unhappy life; because, if you have genius, you must suffer the penalty of genius; and if you have only talent, there are so many cares and worries incidental to the circumstances of men of letters, as to make life exceedingly miserable. Besides the pangs of composition, and the continuous disappointment which a true artist feels at his inability to reveal himself, there is the ever-recurring difficulty of gaining the public ear. Young writers are buoyed up by the hope and the belief that they have only to print to be acknowledged at once as a new light in literature. You can never convince a young author that the editors of magazines and the publishers of books are a practical body of men, who are by no means frantically anxious about placing the best literature before the public. Nay, that for the most part they are mere brokers, who conduct their business on the hardest lines of a Profit and Loss account. But supposing your book fairly launches, its perils are only beginning. You have to run the gauntlet of the critics. To a young author, again, this seems to be as terrible on ordeal as passing down the files of Sioux or Comanche Indians, each one of whom is thirsting for your scalp. When you are a little older, you will find that criticism is not much more serious that the bye-play of clowns in a circus, when they beat around the ring the victim with bladders slung at the end of long poles. A time comes in the life of every author when he regards critics as comical rather than formidable, and goes his way unheeding. But there are sensitive souls that yield under the chastisement and, perhaps after suffering much silent torture, abandon the profession of the pen for ever, Keats, perhaps, is the saddest example of a fine spirit hounded to death by savage criticism; because, whatever his biographers may aver, that furious attack of Gifford and Terry undoubtedly expediated his death. But no doubt there are hundreds who suffer keenly hostile and unscrupulous criticism, and who have to bear that suffering in silence, because it is a cardinal principle in literature that the most unwise thing in the world for an author is to take public notice of criticism in the way of defending himself. Silence is the only safeguard, as it is the only dignified protest against insult and offence.

Unquestionably a literary life is for the most part an unhappy life; because, if you have genius, you must suffer the penalty of genius; and if you have only talent, there are so many cares and worries incidental to the circumstances of men of letters, as to make life exceedingly miserable. Besides the pangs of composition, and the continuous disappointment which a true artist feels at his inability to reveal himself, there is the ever-recurring difficulty of gaining the public ear. Young writers are buoyed up by the hope and the belief that they have only to print to be acknowledged at once as a new light in literature. You can never convince a young author that the editors of magazines and the publishers of books are a practical body of men, who are by no means frantically anxious about placing the best literature before the public. Nay, that for the most part they are mere brokers, who conduct their business on the hardest lines of a Profit and Loss account. But supposing your book fairly launches, its perils are only beginning. You have to run the gauntlet of the critics. To a young author, again, this seems to be as terrible on ordeal as passing down the files of Sioux or Comanche Indians, each one of whom is thirsting for your scalp. When you are a little older, you will find that criticism is not much more serious that the bye-play of clowns in a circus, when they beat around the ring the victim with bladders slung at the end of long poles. A time comes in the life of every author when he regards critics as comical rather than formidable, and goes his way unheeding. But there are sensitive souls that yield under the chastisement and, perhaps after suffering much silent torture, abandon the profession of the pen for ever, Keats, perhaps, is the saddest example of a fine spirit hounded to death by savage criticism; because, whatever his biographers may aver, that furious attack of Gifford and Terry undoubtedly expediated his death. But no doubt there are hundreds who suffer keenly hostile and unscrupulous criticism, and who have to bear that suffering in silence, because it is a cardinal principle in literature that the most unwise thing in the world for an author is to take public notice of criticism in the way of defending himself. Silence is the only safeguard, as it is the only dignified protest against insult and offence.

Organisms change over time. Some of these changes make no difference to the success or failure of the organism that inherit them; other changes do. Take a group of antelopes in which one individual has longer legs than its siblings. Those longer legs make the individual better at escaping from predators, hence giving it an advantage in the survival stakes. Its descendants inherit this feature and are better able to survive as a consequence. Those longer legs have thus become an 'adaptation'. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes has adapted to its conditions, thanks to its development of this features. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes.

Over the generations, the individual components of the genetic code within a species change, or mutate. So far as we know, mutations may provide no evolutionary advantage at all. They may be disadvantageous, in which case they are weeded out via natural selection; or they may be advantageous, in which case they persist through the generations.

Organisms change over time. Some of these changes make no difference to the success or failure of the organism that inherit them; other changes do. Take a group of antelopes in which one individual has longer legs than its siblings. Those longer legs make the individual better at escaping from predators, hence giving it an advantage in the survival stakes. Its descendants inherit this feature and are better able to survive as a consequence. Those longer legs have thus become an 'adaptation'. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes has adapted to its conditions, thanks to its development of this features. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes.

Over the generations, the individual components of the genetic code within a species change, or mutate. So far as we know, mutations may provide no evolutionary advantage at all. They may be disadvantageous, in which case they are weeded out via natural selection; or they may be advantageous, in which case they persist through the generations.

Organisms change over time. Some of these changes make no difference to the success or failure of the organism that inherit them; other changes do. Take a group of antelopes in which one individual has longer legs than its siblings. Those longer legs make the individual better at escaping from predators, hence giving it an advantage in the survival stakes. Its descendants inherit this feature and are better able to survive as a consequence. Those longer legs have thus become an 'adaptation'. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes has adapted to its conditions, thanks to its development of this features. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes.

Over the generations, the individual components of the genetic code within a species change, or mutate. So far as we know, mutations may provide no evolutionary advantage at all. They may be disadvantageous, in which case they are weeded out via natural selection; or they may be advantageous, in which case they persist through the generations.

Organisms change over time. Some of these changes make no difference to the success or failure of the organism that inherit them; other changes do. Take a group of antelopes in which one individual has longer legs than its siblings. Those longer legs make the individual better at escaping from predators, hence giving it an advantage in the survival stakes. Its descendants inherit this feature and are better able to survive as a consequence. Those longer legs have thus become an 'adaptation'. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes has adapted to its conditions, thanks to its development of this features. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes.

Over the generations, the individual components of the genetic code within a species change, or mutate. So far as we know, mutations may provide no evolutionary advantage at all. They may be disadvantageous, in which case they are weeded out via natural selection; or they may be advantageous, in which case they persist through the generations.

Organisms change over time. Some of these changes make no difference to the success or failure of the organism that inherit them; other changes do. Take a group of antelopes in which one individual has longer legs than its siblings. Those longer legs make the individual better at escaping from predators, hence giving it an advantage in the survival stakes. Its descendants inherit this feature and are better able to survive as a consequence. Those longer legs have thus become an 'adaptation'. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes has adapted to its conditions, thanks to its development of this features. Their evolution means that this particular lineage of antelopes.

Over the generations, the individual components of the genetic code within a species change, or mutate. So far as we know, mutations may provide no evolutionary advantage at all. They may be disadvantageous, in which case they are weeded out via natural selection; or they may be advantageous, in which case they persist through the generations.

Supposing you have to make a payment of Rs.100, you can do so in rupees-coins; but it would be cumbersome to pay in nickel or copper coins, because they are heavy to carry and also because it takes much time to count them. The government therefore permits you to make the payment in rupee-notes. What are these rupee notes really? They are kind of money, right enough, although they are made of paper instead of metal. You can use them in just the same way that you use ordinary money. The reason why they are made of paper and used is that they save the trouble of carrying metal coins about-of course, paper is lighter than metal-and they also save using silver and other metals when they are scarce.

What makes these mere pieces of paper bear the value of the number of rupees that is printed upon them? Why should a piece of paper, with "100" printed on it be worth twenty times as much as a piece of paper with "five" printed on it-and also worth a hundred times as much as a silver rupee-coin? The reason is that Government guarantees that the piece of paper is worth the amount printed on it and promised to pay that amount to any body who wishes to exchange this paper for the rupee-coins. Also, if you think about it you can easily realize that crores and crores more of rupee-coins would have to be minted, if all paper-money were abolished.

Perhaps you may ask, "Then why not have paper money only?" Why use silver and Nickle and copper at all? The answer is-because money must, as we have already said, be something so useful that everyone wants. Also because the metals are the best form of money; and thirdly because it would be impossible to print just the right amount of paper money that would keep prices at their proper natural level. It any Government prints too much paper money, then prices go up at once. The supply of money is increased and therefore its value (in food, clothes, books, houses, land, tools and everything else) goes down.

You may think at first that it is queer to talk of having too much paper money and the money is so nice and useful that you cannot have too much of it. But if you think that, I am afraid you are forgetting that money is only useful for what it will buy; so it is no good at all having more money if there are no more things to buy with it. The more money there is, the higher will be the prices of everything. The same thing happens with rupee-coins as with paper money. But it is not likely to happen, for this reason: it is very easy to print a great deal of paper money, but not at all easy to increase the amount there is if it keeps very steady and changes very little. In fact that is one of the chief reasons why it was chosen to make coins of.

Supposing you have to make a payment of Rs.100, you can do so in rupees-coins; but it would be cumbersome to pay in nickel or copper coins, because they are heavy to carry and also because it takes much time to count them. The government therefore permits you to make the payment in rupee-notes. What are these rupee notes really? They are kind of money, right enough, although they are made of paper instead of metal. You can use them in just the same way that you use ordinary money. The reason why they are made of paper and used is that they save the trouble of carrying metal coins about-of course, paper is lighter than metal-and they also save using silver and other metals when they are scarce.

What makes these mere pieces of paper bear the value of the number of rupees that is printed upon them? Why should a piece of paper, with "100" printed on it be worth twenty times as much as a piece of paper with "five" printed on it-and also worth a hundred times as much as a silver rupee-coin? The reason is that Government guarantees that the piece of paper is worth the amount printed on it and promised to pay that amount to any body who wishes to exchange this paper for the rupee-coins. Also, if you think about it you can easily realize that crores and crores more of rupee-coins would have to be minted, if all paper-money were abolished.

Perhaps you may ask, "Then why not have paper money only?" Why use silver and Nickle and copper at all? The answer is-because money must, as we have already said, be something so useful that everyone wants. Also because the metals are the best form of money; and thirdly because it would be impossible to print just the right amount of paper money that would keep prices at their proper natural level. It any Government prints too much paper money, then prices go up at once. The supply of money is increased and therefore its value (in food, clothes, books, houses, land, tools and everything else) goes down.

You may think at first that it is queer to talk of having too much paper money and the money is so nice and useful that you cannot have too much of it. But if you think that, I am afraid you are forgetting that money is only useful for what it will buy; so it is no good at all having more money if there are no more things to buy with it. The more money there is, the higher will be the prices of everything. The same thing happens with rupee-coins as with paper money. But it is not likely to happen, for this reason: it is very easy to print a great deal of paper money, but not at all easy to increase the amount there is if it keeps very steady and changes very little. In fact that is one of the chief reasons why it was chosen to make coins of.

Supposing you have to make a payment of Rs.100, you can do so in rupees-coins; but it would be cumbersome to pay in nickel or copper coins, because they are heavy to carry and also because it takes much time to count them. The government therefore permits you to make the payment in rupee-notes. What are these rupee notes really? They are kind of money, right enough, although they are made of paper instead of metal. You can use them in just the same way that you use ordinary money. The reason why they are made of paper and used is that they save the trouble of carrying metal coins about-of course, paper is lighter than metal-and they also save using silver and other metals when they are scarce.

What makes these mere pieces of paper bear the value of the number of rupees that is printed upon them? Why should a piece of paper, with "100" printed on it be worth twenty times as much as a piece of paper with "five" printed on it-and also worth a hundred times as much as a silver rupee-coin? The reason is that Government guarantees that the piece of paper is worth the amount printed on it and promised to pay that amount to any body who wishes to exchange this paper for the rupee-coins. Also, if you think about it you can easily realize that crores and crores more of rupee-coins would have to be minted, if all paper-money were abolished.

Perhaps you may ask, "Then why not have paper money only?" Why use silver and Nickle and copper at all? The answer is-because money must, as we have already said, be something so useful that everyone wants. Also because the metals are the best form of money; and thirdly because it would be impossible to print just the right amount of paper money that would keep prices at their proper natural level. It any Government prints too much paper money, then prices go up at once. The supply of money is increased and therefore its value (in food, clothes, books, houses, land, tools and everything else) goes down.

You may think at first that it is queer to talk of having too much paper money and the money is so nice and useful that you cannot have too much of it. But if you think that, I am afraid you are forgetting that money is only useful for what it will buy; so it is no good at all having more money if there are no more things to buy with it. The more money there is, the higher will be the prices of everything. The same thing happens with rupee-coins as with paper money. But it is not likely to happen, for this reason: it is very easy to print a great deal of paper money, but not at all easy to increase the amount there is if it keeps very steady and changes very little. In fact that is one of the chief reasons why it was chosen to make coins of.

Supposing you have to make a payment of Rs.100, you can do so in rupees-coins; but it would be cumbersome to pay in nickel or copper coins, because they are heavy to carry and also because it takes much time to count them. The government therefore permits you to make the payment in rupee-notes. What are these rupee notes really? They are kind of money, right enough, although they are made of paper instead of metal. You can use them in just the same way that you use ordinary money. The reason why they are made of paper and used is that they save the trouble of carrying metal coins about-of course, paper is lighter than metal-and they also save using silver and other metals when they are scarce.

What makes these mere pieces of paper bear the value of the number of rupees that is printed upon them? Why should a piece of paper, with "100" printed on it be worth twenty times as much as a piece of paper with "five" printed on it-and also worth a hundred times as much as a silver rupee-coin? The reason is that Government guarantees that the piece of paper is worth the amount printed on it and promised to pay that amount to any body who wishes to exchange this paper for the rupee-coins. Also, if you think about it you can easily realize that crores and crores more of rupee-coins would have to be minted, if all paper-money were abolished.

Perhaps you may ask, "Then why not have paper money only?" Why use silver and Nickle and copper at all? The answer is-because money must, as we have already said, be something so useful that everyone wants. Also because the metals are the best form of money; and thirdly because it would be impossible to print just the right amount of paper money that would keep prices at their proper natural level. It any Government prints too much paper money, then prices go up at once. The supply of money is increased and therefore its value (in food, clothes, books, houses, land, tools and everything else) goes down.

You may think at first that it is queer to talk of having too much paper money and the money is so nice and useful that you cannot have too much of it. But if you think that, I am afraid you are forgetting that money is only useful for what it will buy; so it is no good at all having more money if there are no more things to buy with it. The more money there is, the higher will be the prices of everything. The same thing happens with rupee-coins as with paper money. But it is not likely to happen, for this reason: it is very easy to print a great deal of paper money, but not at all easy to increase the amount there is if it keeps very steady and changes very little. In fact that is one of the chief reasons why it was chosen to make coins of.

Supposing you have to make a payment of Rs.100, you can do so in rupees-coins; but it would be cumbersome to pay in nickel or copper coins, because they are heavy to carry and also because it takes much time to count them. The government therefore permits you to make the payment in rupee-notes. What are these rupee notes really? They are kind of money, right enough, although they are made of paper instead of metal. You can use them in just the same way that you use ordinary money. The reason why they are made of paper and used is that they save the trouble of carrying metal coins about-of course, paper is lighter than metal-and they also save using silver and other metals when they are scarce.

What makes these mere pieces of paper bear the value of the number of rupees that is printed upon them? Why should a piece of paper, with "100" printed on it be worth twenty times as much as a piece of paper with "five" printed on it-and also worth a hundred times as much as a silver rupee-coin? The reason is that Government guarantees that the piece of paper is worth the amount printed on it and promised to pay that amount to any body who wishes to exchange this paper for the rupee-coins. Also, if you think about it you can easily realize that crores and crores more of rupee-coins would have to be minted, if all paper-money were abolished.

Perhaps you may ask, "Then why not have paper money only?" Why use silver and Nickle and copper at all? The answer is-because money must, as we have already said, be something so useful that everyone wants. Also because the metals are the best form of money; and thirdly because it would be impossible to print just the right amount of paper money that would keep prices at their proper natural level. It any Government prints too much paper money, then prices go up at once. The supply of money is increased and therefore its value (in food, clothes, books, houses, land, tools and everything else) goes down.

You may think at first that it is queer to talk of having too much paper money and the money is so nice and useful that you cannot have too much of it. But if you think that, I am afraid you are forgetting that money is only useful for what it will buy; so it is no good at all having more money if there are no more things to buy with it. The more money there is, the higher will be the prices of everything. The same thing happens with rupee-coins as with paper money. But it is not likely to happen, for this reason: it is very easy to print a great deal of paper money, but not at all easy to increase the amount there is if it keeps very steady and changes very little. In fact that is one of the chief reasons why it was chosen to make coins of.