खालील इंग्रजी उतारा काळजीपूर्वक वाचा आणि त्यावर आधारित प्रश्नांची उत्तरे द्या (English Language Comprehension):
Two musicians dwelling in one house gave lessons to pupils on the piano, and the man next door, who objected to his peace being disturbed in this way, took his revenge by banging on tin cans, and otherwise making things unpleasant for the musicians. I do not know what the law said on the subject. It may be admitted that the annoyances were equal in effect, but they were not the same in motive. In the one case, the motive was the reasonable one of earning an honest living; there was no deliberate intention of being offensive to the neighbours. In the other case, the motive was admittedly to make a demonstration against the neighbours. What is to be done in such circumstances? It is not an offence to play the piano in one's own house even for a living. On the other hand, it is hard, especially if you don't like music, or perhaps even more if you do, to hear the scales going on, on the piano next door, all day.
The question of motive does not seem to be relevant. If my neighbour makes noises which render my life intolerable, it is no answer to say that he makes them for a living and without intending to destroy my peace. He does destroy my peace and it is no comfort to be assured that he does not mean to. Hazlitt insisted that a man may play the trombone in his own house all day if he took reasonable measures to limit the annoyance to his neighbours; but Hazlitt has probably never lived beside a trombone. I find my argument is leading me to the side of the tin can gentleman, and I don't want it to do that, for my sympathies are with the musicians. And yet -
Well, let us avoid a definite conclusion altogether and leave the incident to make us generally a little more sensitive about the feelings of our neighbours. They cannot expect us never to play the piano; but the amenities of neighbourliness require that we should mutually avoid being a nuisance to each other as much as we can.
Which of the following statements is supported by the passage ?
EN
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:
Two musicians dwelling in one house gave lessons to pupils on the piano, and the man next door, who objected to his peace being disturbed in this way, took his revenge by banging on tin cans, and otherwise making things unpleasant for the musicians. I do not know what the law said on the subject. It may be admitted that the annoyances were equal in effect, but they were not the same in motive. In the one case, the motive was the reasonable one of earning an honest living; there was no deliberate intention of being offensive to the neighbours. In the other case, the motive was admittedly to make a demonstration against the neighbours. What is to be done in such circumstances? It is not an offence to play the piano in one's own house even for a living. On the other hand, it is hard, especially if you don't like music, or perhaps even more if you do, to hear the scales going on, on the piano next door, all day.
The question of motive does not seem to be relevant. If my neighbour makes noises which render my life intolerable, it is no answer to say that he makes them for a living and without intending to destroy my peace. He does destroy my peace and it is no comfort to be assured that he does not mean to. Hazlitt insisted that a man may play the trombone in his own house all day if he took reasonable measures to limit the annoyance to his neighbours; but Hazlitt has probably never lived beside a trombone. I find my argument is leading me to the side of the tin can gentleman, and I don't want it to do that, for my sympathies are with the musicians. And yet -
Well, let us avoid a definite conclusion altogether and leave the incident to make us generally a little more sensitive about the feelings of our neighbours. They cannot expect us never to play the piano; but the amenities of neighbourliness require that we should mutually avoid being a nuisance to each other as much as we can.
Which of the following statements is supported by the passage ?
Which of the following statements is supported by the passage ?