SSC CGL 2025 Tier-I · 14 September 2025, Shift 2 · English Comprehension · Question 16 of 100

We transcribed this text from the pictures on a candidate's response sheet for this shift; the answer is the key SSC colour-marked on that sheet. Solution last reviewed 11 September 2026.

Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage:
Cricket, as a sport, has continually evolved in response to changing audience preferences and technological advancements. Among its many formats, Test cricket and One Day Internationals (ODIs) represent two contrasting philosophies—one rooted in endurance and strategy, the other in dynamism and entertainment. Test cricket, often regarded as the pinnacle of the sport, is a format that unfolds over five days, demanding exceptional levels of patience, technique, and mental resilience. It offers players the opportunity to exhibit classical skills and tactical acumen, where the fluctuating tempo mirrors the rhythm of real life—unpredictable, slow-burning, and layered. For purists, Test cricket is an art form, rewarding not merely flamboyance but consistency and grit. In contrast, ODIs compress the drama into a single day. With limited overs, this format prioritizes aggressive batting, innovative bowling variations, and strategic field placements. The adrenaline-infused pace of ODIs appeals to a broader demographic, especially in an era of dwindling attention spans and time constraints. For broadcasters and advertisers, the shorter format offers commercial viability, making it a lucrative spectacle. However, critics argue that the commercialization of ODIs has come at the expense of depth and nuance. In pursuit of viewership, substance often gives way to spectacle. Conversely, defenders of Test cricket lament its declining audience, attributing it to an increasingly entertainment-driven sports culture. Yet, occasional high-stakes encounters—like the Ashes or India-Australia series—still manage to ignite global interest. The ongoing debate between formats is not merely about preference, but about the identity of the sport itself. While both formats have their merits, the challenge lies in preserving the sanctity of Test cricket without undermining the accessibility of ODIs—a delicate balance that cricketing authorities must negotiate in the years ahead.

Which of the following is a criticism of ODIs mentioned in the passage?

(a)Too long for modern viewers
(b)Lack of competitiveness
(c)Loss of depth due to over-commercialization
(d)Fewer international tournaments

Answer

Why

Correct — C. The passage names the criticism outright: "critics argue that the commercialization of ODIs has come at the expense of depth and nuance."

The next sentence repeats it: "In pursuit of viewership, substance often gives way to spectacle."

Depth lost to commercialization → option (c).

Why the others are wrong

(a)
Too long for modern viewers — Too long is the reverse of what the passage says about ODIs: they compress the drama into a single day. Their fit with dwindling attention spans is offered as a strength.
(b)
Lack of competitiveness — Lack of competitiveness is never raised. The passage credits ODIs with aggressive batting, innovative bowling variations and an adrenaline-infused pace.
(d)
Fewer international tournaments — Fewer international tournaments has no basis. The passage never discusses how many tournaments there are, and names the Ashes and India-Australia series only as encounters that still draw interest.

Concept

A criticism mentioned question asks for a view the passage reports, not one you might hold yourself.

Find the signal that introduces it, here critics argue, then match its content: commercialization → over-commercialization, depth and nuance → depth.

Options that give ODIs a Test cricket trait, or raise points the passage never makes, fail however plausible they sound.

The option says over-commercialization where the passage says commercialization. The critics' complaint that it came at the expense of depth is what makes the stronger word fair.

Key facts

The passage reports critics' view that the commercialization of ODIs has come at the expense of depth and nuance.
It adds that, in pursuit of viewership, substance often gives way to spectacle.
It credits the shorter format with commercial viability for broadcasters and advertisers.

Study next

Separating the author's view from views attributed to critics or defendersSignal words for a counter-view: however, conversely, yet

Common traps

Choosing (a) by carrying Test cricket's five-day length over to ODIs
Reading the attention-span line as a criticism, when it explains why ODIs appeal

Within this passage, English Q.19 keys the central concern as Balancing tradition with commercial interests, which builds on this criticism.

The same passage carries English Q.15 to Q.19.

Related PYQs

No directly related past PYQ was found.

Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage:
Cricket, as a sport, has continually evolved in response to changing audience preferences and technological advancements. Among its many formats, Test cricket and One Day Internationals (ODIs) represent two contrasting philosophies—one rooted in endurance and strategy, the other in dynamism and entertainment. Test cricket, often regarded as the pinnacle of the sport, is a format that unfolds over five days, demanding exceptional levels of patience, technique, and mental resilience. It offers players the opportunity to exhibit classical skills and tactical acumen, where the fluctuating tempo mirrors the rhythm of real life—unpredictable, slow-burning, and layered. For purists, Test cricket is an art form, rewarding not merely flamboyance but consistency and grit. In contrast, ODIs compress the drama into a single day. With limited overs, this format prioritizes aggressive batting, innovative bowling variations, and strategic field placements. The adrenaline-infused pace of ODIs appeals to a broader demographic, especially in an era of dwindling attention spans and time constraints. For broadcasters and advertisers, the shorter format offers commercial viability, making it a lucrative spectacle. However, critics argue that the commercialization of ODIs has come at the expense of depth and nuance. In pursuit of viewership, substance often gives way to spectacle. Conversely, defenders of Test cricket lament its declining audience, attributing it to an increasingly entertainment-driven sports culture. Yet, occasional high-stakes encounters—like the Ashes or India-Australia series—still manage to ignite global interest. The ongoing debate between formats is not merely about preference, but about the identity of the sport itself. While both formats have their merits, the challenge lies in preserving the sanctity of Test cricket without undermining the accessibility of ODIs—a delicate balance that cricketing authorities must negotiate in the years ahead.