Logical (Critical) Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 70

A Madras High Court Judge’s suggestion to amend the Constitution of India mandating that every citizen also has a duty to laugh comes as a whiff of fresh air – something the country has been gasping for, of late. Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench has a remarkably refined sense of humour, but in quashing an FIR against a man arrested for an innocuous social media post, his insightful observations only highlight the idiocy and absurdity that surround the growth and normalisation of the offence-taking tribe. Written from the perspective of cartoonists and satirists, the judgment draws attention to how what ought to be a reasonable understanding of a situation is increasingly being influenced by impulses that border on the irrational and amount to an abuse of the legal process. 

The petitioner tried tongue-in-cheek wordplay while captioning photographs after a sight-seeing trip with family : ‘Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice’. For the police, it appeared as a threat to wage war, though the Judicial Magistrate refused remand. ‘Laugh at what?’ is a serious question, the Judge said, using the ‘holy cow’ as a metaphor, which varies from person to person, region to region. Being funny is one thing, the Judge righty states, and poking fun at another is different altogether. Those who have been at the receiving end for their attempt at humour can draw strength from the ruling, but then, a creative process facing combative opposition because of its very nature is anything but funny.

Question 1: What is the main argument presented in the passage about Justice GR Swaminathan’s ruling?

A) The judiciary is becoming increasingly sympathetic towards social media users. 

B)  The suggestion to amend the Constitution to mandate laughter is a serious legal proposal. 

C) Justice Swaminathan advocates for laughter and humor to combat irrationality in legal processes. 

D) The petitioner’s post was a genuine threat to public safety.

Question 2: Which of the following best supports the idea that humor can counteract irrational legal actions?

A) The Judge’s use of the ‘holy cow’ metaphor to explain subjective interpretations of humor. 

B) The Judicial Magistrate’s refusal to remand the petitioner supports the legitimacy of social media posts.

C) The Constitution mandates freedom of expression, which allows satire to thrive in public discourse. 

D) The petitioner’s arrest for an innocuous social media post is an example of a legal overreaction. 

Question 3: What assumption does Justice Swaminathan’s ruling seem to make about society’s reaction to humor?

A) Society has a balanced and reasonable approach to humor in public spaces. 

B) The police should have taken the petitioner’s post as a serious threat.

C) Humor is always received well and fosters healthy dialogue in legal and social contexts. 

D) Increasingly, people are quick to take offense at humor, even when it’s harmless.

Question 4: What inference can be drawn from the Judge’s statement that being funny and poking fun are different?

A) Humor should always be aimed at others to be impactful. 

B) There is a fine line between humor and offensive mockery. 

C) All forms of humor are equally valid and should be protected under law. 

D) Poking fun at individuals is legally permissible, regardless of the consequences.

Question 5: What is the implication of the Judge’s use of the ‘holy cow’ metaphor in the context of humor?

A) Humor can be subjective, and what one person finds amusing may offend another. 

B) The metaphor suggests that religious symbols should never be the subject of humor. 

C) The ‘holy cow’ represents the legal system’s rigidity when dealing with humor. 

D) Society should ban all types of humor that reference sacred or sensitive topics.