Q1. 

I. The committee, with the help of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, found that MP Mahua Moitra’s credentials were used online from Dubai 47 times.

II. Parliamentary questions were submitted from abroad.

(a) Consequently,

(b) While

(c) As

(d) Since

(e) Because

Q2.

I. The recommendation for Mahua Moitra’s expulsion is a brazenly partisan attempt to silence a critic of the government.

II. It is also a warning shot meant to intimidate MPs from doing their job of holding the executive accountable.

(a) Therefore,

(b) And

(c) But

(d) Moreover,

(e) However

Q3.

I. Neither the process nor the conclusions of the committee are grounded in any decipherable principle.

II. The committee is calling upon the government to investigate the allegation of ‘quid pro quo’.

(a) Yet,

(b) Because

(c) Although

(d) As if

(e) Despite

Q4.

I. MPs raise questions in Parliament based on representations from various constituents.

II. To assume without solid evidence that any question is in exchange for material favours is an assault on parliamentary democracy.

(a) Hence,

(b) For

(c) If

(d) Therefore,

(e) However

Q5.

I. The selective investigation of one MP, based on insinuations and conjectures, clearly comes out as intimidation.

II. The tardy response of the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges to a serious complaint against another MP contrasts sharply.

(a) Whereas,

(b) And

(c) While

(d) Although

(e) Because

Q6.

I. Ms. Moitra’s act of allowing a person who is not employed by her to execute official work on her behalf betrays a lack of discretion and judgement.

II. This should act as a lesson for all those who seek to hold the government accountable.

(a) Therefore,

(b) Consequently,

(c) As a result,

(d) Because of this,

(e) Hence,

Q7.

I. The recommendation is a brazenly partisan attempt to silence a critic of the government.

II. It is an assault on parliamentary democracy itself.

(a) Indeed,

(b) Also,

(c) Thus,

(d) Moreover,

(e) Consequently,

Q8.

I. The committee is calling upon the government to investigate the allegation of ‘quid pro quo’ raised against Ms. Moitra.

II. They have already held her guilty, turning the principle of natural justice on its head.

(a) While

(b) Although

(c) After

(d) Before

(e) Despite

Q9.

I. MPs are barred from sharing their login credentials with others.

II. The rule must equally apply to one and all.

(a) Thus,

(b) Therefore,

(c) Hence,

(d) Consequently,

(e) So

Q10.

I. That a member can abuse and threaten another member on the floor of the House is a matter of serious concern.

II. Ms. Moitra’s act of allowing unofficial execution of her duties betrays a lack of judgement.

(a) Similarly,

(b) Conversely,

(c) However,

(d) Nevertheless,

(e) But

Answers and Solution:

1: (d) The connector ‘since’ can be used to form a single sentence from the two statements, implying a cause-effect relationship. The complete sentence would be: “Since the committee, with the help of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, found that MP Mahua Moitra’s credentials were used online from Dubai 47 times, parliamentary questions were submitted from abroad.”

2 : (b) The connector ‘and’ can be used to combine these statements, as it shows a continuation of related ideas. The complete sentence would be: “The recommendation for Mahua Moitra’s expulsion is a brazenly partisan attempt to silence a critic of the government and it is also a warning shot meant to intimidate MPs from doing their job of holding the executive accountable.”

3 : (a) ‘Yet’ is the appropriate connector, introducing a contrast between the two statements. The complete sentence would be: “Neither the process nor the conclusions of the committee are grounded in any decipherable principle, yet the committee is calling upon the government to investigate the allegation of ‘quid pro quo’.”

4: (d) The connector ‘therefore’ logically links the cause and effect between these two statements. The complete sentence would be: “MPs raise questions in Parliament based on representations from various constituents, therefore to assume without solid evidence that any question is in exchange for material favours is an assault on parliamentary democracy.”

5:(a) ‘Whereas’ is suitable for contrasting the two scenarios. The complete sentence would be: “The selective investigation of one MP, based on insinuations and conjectures, clearly comes out as intimidation, whereas the tardy response of the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges to a serious complaint against another MP contrasts sharply.”

6: (a) ‘Therefore’ connects the consequence to the action. The complete sentence would be: “Ms. Moitra’s act of allowing a person who is not employed by her to execute official work on her behalf betrays a lack of discretion and judgement, therefore this should act as a lesson for all those who seek to hold the government accountable.”

7: (a) ‘Indeed’ can be used to emphasize and agree with the first statement. The complete sentence would be: “The recommendation is a brazenly partisan attempt to silence a critic of the government, indeed it is an assault on parliamentary democracy itself.”

8:(c) ‘After’ correctly implies the sequence of events. The complete sentence would be: “After calling upon the government to investigate the allegation of ‘quid pro quo’ raised against Ms. Moitra, the committee has already held her guilty, turning the principle of natural justice on its head.”

9: (b) ‘Therefore’ indicates a logical conclusion. The complete sentence would be: “MPs are barred from sharing their login credentials with others, therefore the rule must equally apply to one and all.”

10: (c) ‘However’ introduces a contrast between the two concerns. The complete sentence would be: “That a member can abuse and threaten another member on the floor of the House is a matter of serious concern, however, Ms. Moitra’s act of allowing unofficial execution of her duties betrays a lack of judgement.”