Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: verify details before accepting any job
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This reading comprehension question asks you to draw a general conclusion from the experiences of Namita and Gopal, two characters who leave their homes for work abroad. Both face serious difficulties because of incomplete or misleading information about their employers and working conditions. The examiner wants to see whether you can extract the broader lesson that the passage is implying about such employment decisions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Comprehension questions about "conclusions" test your ability to generalise from specific stories. You should look at what both cases have in common and then see which advice or lesson logically follows. Here, the common factor is that both Namita and Gopal accept jobs without fully checking the truth about the employer or the working conditions. Hence, a reasonable conclusion is that people should verify all important details before agreeing to such offers, especially when they involve travel to foreign countries and big sacrifices.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Summarise Namita's experience: she discovers that her employer's business is illegal and feels anxious about remaining in that environment.Step 2: Summarise Gopal's experience: he and his family take a big financial risk, but on arrival he loses his passport and control over his life.Step 3: Identify the shared problem: neither of them had complete and reliable information before making the decision to go abroad.Step 4: Examine the options to see which one expresses a general lesson that applies logically to both stories.Step 5: Recognise that "verify details before accepting any job" is the common sense conclusion suggested by both cases.
Verification / Alternative check:
If Namita had checked the true nature of Mr. Nair's business, she might have refused the job. If Gopal's family had verified the contractor's reputation and the legal protections for workers, they might have avoided selling their land so easily. For both, careful verification would have reduced the risk. The other options either go beyond the passage (for example, advising never to travel) or conflict with the characters' motives and realities.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A, "stay in their own countries and villages", is too extreme and not justified by the passage, which does not say that all migration is bad. Option B, "feel contented and satisfied with their lot", ignores the genuine economic pressures and aspirations that push people to seek better opportunities. Option D, "not travel to these regions of the world", unfairly targets certain places and again is stronger than what the passage suggests. Only Option C, "verify details before accepting any job", is a balanced conclusion that follows directly from what went wrong in both stories.
Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to choose options that sound moralistic or safe without checking whether the passage truly supports them. Another pitfall is to overlook the shared factor and focus only on one character. When answering conclusion questions, always ask what the author seems to be warning about or advising against in a general sense that fits both examples.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is verify details before accepting any job, because both Namita and Gopal face difficulties as a result of not having full and accurate information about their employers and working conditions before deciding to go abroad.
Discussion & Comments