很多考生都在搜索GRE考试阅读练习题，以下是历年GRE阅读练习中出现的题目。希望通过这些练习能给广大GRE考生在做GRE阅读上开拓思路。
Nothing shows up the schizophrenia of the Indian mind in the face of this challenge than that the two principal leaders of the national struggle for independence Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Nehru should have come to contrary conclusions. The Mahatma was for an outright rejection of the western civilization, which is often described as Satanic. Mr. Nehru was for all-out industrialization. Both spoke from utter conviction and were extremely articulate in stating their positions. But neither of them thought it worth his while to grapple with the troublesome details when it came to making the reality conform to the vision.
The Mahatma was, of course, most meticulous about detail and when he undertook a job, whether it was the spread of the spinning wheel, revival of village industries or helping the Harijans, he did not regard the smallest matter pertaining to the concerned organization or an individual grievance beneath his personal attention. It was a different story, however, with translating his larger vision of a non-violent society into a blueprint.
He enunciated the general principal very forcefully. But such details as the state structure the new society would build and the social legislation it would undertake, the precise industrial policy it would pursue or the defense policy it would opt for, he left alone or dealt with in bits and pieces. Did he fear that his vision would suffer by raising all these issues at one go? Or did he realize long before the day of India???s tryst with destiny that he would not count on anyone even among his closest colleagues in the Congress to back him?
Mr. Nehru was in a much better position to carry out his ideas. But the very Constitution-making process became a formal exercise. There was no attempt to think in terms of institutions, which while preserving the substance of democracy, would contain populist pressures, make government more business-like and more productive of results and make for easy and cheap access to justice. All this is not to believe his role in guiding the young republic in its formative years and setting norms which none of the regimes that came after him were also to live up to. But that does not detract from the processes of decline. The proliferation of slums had begun, and small groups were already hogging up the larger part of the gains of development. No concerted attempt was made to close the loopholes in land laws and little was done to make school education relevant to the needs of a developing society. The language policy was left to flounder.
That the people still look back to the Nehru era with a sense of nostalgia shows that even things which looked manageable in his days are now out of control. Perhaps this is the result of a deterioration in the quality of leadership, a distressing decline in the integrity of political life and an alarming build-up of populist pressure. But it also is the result of the way each government has been busy storing up trouble for future. Can one be sure after all this that the foundations on which the republic rests are durable enough?
What light does this throw on the Indian mind? The Indian mind delights in ambiguity in ambivalence, in trying to have the best of both worlds, in harboring a medley of conflicting ideas without much discomfort. Whatever the public rhetoric, the practice is always based on half- measures, of leaving things half done, of a refusal to anticipate trouble and a tendency to wake up when the crisis has already matured, this may be an exaggeration. But the slovenliness of approach to every problem is a fact of life which hits in the eye even the most sympathetic foreign observer.
It is not surprising that the Indian genius which excelled in production myths, which created works of sculpture ???which endow the spirit with a body??? and a music which enthralls the mind as well as the spirit, was often at a loss in facing up to the problems of state building. The Indian mind still falters as it tires to come to grips with these problems.
Question 1
What is the main purpose of the writer behind writing this passage?
A)To bring out the contrast in Nehru???s and Gandhi???s dreams and vision of India.
B)To bring out the flaws in Indian democracy.
C)To trace the reasons behind the disordered state of India as one based on hollow foundation laid by leaders in the past.
D)To show the impact of Western Civilization on today???s India.
E)To bring out the past as a disordered and mismanaged government as a result of improper implementation of the job undertaken by leaders.
Answer: C
Answer explanation: Option C is the right answer. The passage seeks to find out the reason behind the present situation where no attention is paid to issues that can turn into crisis if neglected. The writer comes to the conclusion that the present state of affairs is a result of the non-implementation of the larger visions held by Indian leaders into practice. Option A is just mentioned in the passage to explain the ideas held by Indian leaders. Options B and D are obviously wrong and lie beyond the scope of the passage. Option E is a misinterpretation of the passage. It does not deal with disorder in the past, but in the present.
Question 2
What is the main idea expressed in the passage?
A)The passage expresses the vision and dreams of Indian leaders for a better future.
B)The passage expresses the shaping up of a disorganized state due to the constricted vision of our leaders.
C)The passage is an account of a successful democratic set up of the Indian government as a result of the policies made by our leaders.
D)The passage explains how the Constitution was made and what clauses it included.
E)The passage gives an account of the mismanaged government due to the formulation of faulty laws.
Answer: B
Answer explanation: B is the correct answer since the passage deals with how the present situation has resulted as a disorderly and mismanaged state. The passage explains the visions of leaders being neglected by them themselves and thus turning things out of control. Option A has a narrow scope and just mentions the visions held by the leaders. It does not mention anything about their implementation. C is wrong since the writer does not give an account of success of policies, but refers to the failures of the same. Option D is irrelevant and thus obviously wrong. Option E seems to be a likely answer, but when you compare it with option B, its scope is narrow. It does not mention the lack of efforts in putting thoughts into practice.
Question 3
Provide a suitable title to the passage.
A)Leaders of the Freedom Struggle
B)Nehrus and Gandhis Vision of India
C)History of Indian Democracy
D)Reflections of the Past in the Present India
E)Lack of Effective Leaders in India Today
Answer: D
Answer explanation: The writer discusses the present situation as a result of the neglected and incomplete efforts done in the past by the leaders. Thus we can say that D is the most suitable answer option. A is obviously wrong since the passage does not deal with the leaders of freedom struggle. Similarly C is wrong since the writer does not explain what and how of Indian democracy. Option B is a part of the passage. It does not comprise the whole passage and thus it is rejected. Similarly option E also has a mention in the passage where the writer hints at deterioration in the quality of leadership that has resulted in the present situation. Thus it is not fit to be the title of the passage.
