Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies
Selfstudy
Selfstudy

Reading Comprehension Test 66

Result Self Studies

Reading Comprehension Test 66
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
TIME Taken - -
Self Studies

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Self Studies Self Studies
Weekly Quiz Competition
  • Question 1
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    Read the given passage carefully and attempt the question that follows.

        The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it a success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. 
       In the ultimate analysis, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that the instinct to possess has been rooted out or that it will not reappear in an even worse form under a different guise. It may even be that like a gas kept confined within container under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction.
         The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct. So long as the ideal that is to be achieved is one of securing the maximum material satisfaction, possessiveness is neither suppressed nor eliminated but grows on what it feeds. Nor does it cease to be possessiveness, whether it is confined to only a few or is shared by many.    
      If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others. This calls for the substitution of material values by purely spiritual ones. The paradise of material satisfaction, which is sometimes equated with the progress these days, neither spells peace nor progress. Mahatma Gandhi has shown us how the acquisitive  instinct inherent in man can be transmuted by the adoption of the ideal trusteeship by those who 'have' for the benefit of all those who 'have not' so that, instead of leading to exploitation and conflict, it would become a means and incentive for the amelioration and progress of society respectively.
    [passage-footer][/passage-footer]

    ...view full instructions

    Which of the following conclusions can be deduced from the passage?
    Solution
    The last sentence of the passage clearly provides the conclusion that, after establishing the social order of Gandhiji's pattern the possibility of a conflict between different classes o society will hardly exist. Therefore option (b) is correct.
  • Question 2
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The question in this section is based on a single passage. The question is to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Kindly note that more than one of the choices may conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the most appropriate answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.

         The spread of education in society is at the foundation of success in countries that are latecomers to development. In the quest for development, primary education is absolutely essential because it creates the base. But higher education is just as important for it provides the cutting edge. Universities are the life-blood of higher education. Islands of excellence in professional education, such as Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), are valuable complements but cannot be substituted for universities which provide educational opportunities for people at large.
         There can be no doubt that higher education has made a significant contribution to economic development, social progress and political democracy in independent India. It is a source of dynamism for the economy. It has created social opportunities for people, it has fostered the vibrant democracy in our polity. It has provided a beginning for the creation of a knowledge society. But it would be a mistake to focus on its strengths alone. It has weaknesses that are cause for serious concern.
         There is, in fact, a quiet crisis in higher education in India that runs deep. It is not yet discernible simply because there are pockets of excellence, an enormous reservoir of talented young people and an intense competition in the admissions process.
    And, in some important spheres, we continue to reap the benefits of what was sown in higher education 50 years ago by the founding fathers of the republic. The reality is that we have miles to go. The proportion of our population, in the age group 18-24, that enters the world of higher education is around 7%, which is only one-half the average for Asia. The opportunities for higher education, in terms of the number of places in universities, are simply not enough in relation to our need. What is more, the quality of higher education is most of our universities requires substantial improvement.
         It is clear that the system of higher education in India faces serious challenges. It needs a systematic overhaul so that we can educate much larger numbers without diluting academic standards. This is imperative because the transformation of economy and society in the 21st century would depend, in significant part, on the spread and the quality of education among our people, particularly in the sphere of higher education. It is only an inclusive society that can provide the foundations for a knowledge society.
         The challenges that confront higher education in India are clear. It needs a massive expansion of opportunities for higher education, to 1500 universities nationwide, that would enable India to attain a gross enrollment ration of at least 15% by 2015. It is just as important to raise the average quality of higher education in the very sphere. At the same time, it is essential to create institutions that are exemplars of excellence at par with the best in the world. In the pursuit of these objectives, providing people with access to higher education in a socially inclusive manner is imperative. The realization of these objectives, combined with access. would not only develop the skills and capabilities we need for the economy but would also help transform India into a knowledge economy and society.

    ...view full instructions

    Should the entire university system in India be modeled on premier institutes, such as IITs and IIMs, providing professional education?
    Solution
    b"The last two sentences of the first paragraph suggests 'entire university system in India should not be modeled on premier institutes, such as IITs and IIMs. providing professional education.' Therefore option (c) is the correct response."
  • Question 3
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for the blank:
         When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased, so has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledgling has grown tremendously.
         And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetual on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backward.
         Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong-India has fared abysmally. It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had.
         It suffered hardly or not at all during World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others, who could be ranked among the world's best) and excellent business acumen. Yet today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top.
         Hong Kong is a powerhouse. So, is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
         The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally encouraging inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only, when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent.
         The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it opened under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks, who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an excisable wart.
         The high expropriatory rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of the industry for the public sector and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude.
         The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth. Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide.
         But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself or that of more than a handful of ministers has changed, is open to question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations.
         Transparency is still a long way off. And there is no existing policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labor is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labor, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labor. In other ways too, the government hurts industries.
         Public sector monopolies like the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited make it possible for Indian business to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad.
         The infrastructure is in a shambles party because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business and partly because it does not have the stomach to charge market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then, of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.

    ...view full instructions

    The major reason for India's poor performance is
    Solution
    It is clearly mentioned in the passage that, 'The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism'. Therefore option (a) is the correct choice.
  • Question 4
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for the blank:
         When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased, so has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledgling has grown tremendously.
         And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetual on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backward.
         Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong-India has fared abysmally. It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had.
         It suffered hardly or not at all during World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others, who could be ranked among the world's best) and excellent business acumen. Yet today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top.
         Hong Kong is a powerhouse. So, is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
         The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally encouraging inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only, when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent.
         The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it opened under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks, who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an excisable wart.
         The high expropriatory rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of the industry for the public sector and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude.
         The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth. Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide.
         But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself or that of more than a handful of ministers has changed, is open to question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations.
         Transparency is still a long way off. And there is no existing policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labor is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labor, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labor. In other ways too, the government hurts industries.
         Public sector monopolies like the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited make it possible for Indian business to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad.
         The infrastructure is in a shambles party because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business and partly because it does not have the stomach to charge market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then, of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.

    ...view full instructions

    Some of the manifestations of earning wealth by government have changed and these changes have occurred in
    Solution
    As per the fourth paragraph opening 3 sentences only option (b) comes out clearly. The other options though close but do not express the same idea as stated in the passage.
  • Question 5
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The question in this section is based on a single passage. The question is to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Kindly note that more than one of the choices may conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the most appropriate answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.

         The spread of education in society is at the foundation of success in countries that are latecomers to development. In the quest for development, primary education is absolutely essential because it creates the base. But higher education is just as important for it provides the cutting edge. Universities are the life-blood of higher education. Islands of excellence in professional education, such as Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), are valuable complements but cannot be substituted for universities which provide educational opportunities for people at large.
         There can be no doubt that higher education has made a significant contribution to economic development, social progress and political democracy in independent India. It is a source of dynamism for the economy. It has created social opportunities for people, it has fostered the vibrant democracy in our polity. It has provided a beginning for the creation of a knowledge society. But it would be a mistake to focus on its strengths alone. It has weaknesses that are cause for serious concern.
         There is, in fact, a quiet crisis in higher education in India that runs deep. It is not yet discernible simply because there are pockets of excellence, an enormous reservoir of talented young people and an intense competition in the admissions process.
    And, in some important spheres, we continue to reap the benefits of what was sown in higher education 50 years ago by the founding fathers of the republic. The reality is that we have miles to go. The proportion of our population, in the age group 18-24, that enters the world of higher education is around 7%, which is only one-half the average for Asia. The opportunities for higher education, in terms of the number of places in universities, are simply not enough in relation to our need. What is more, the quality of higher education is most of our universities requires substantial improvement.
         It is clear that the system of higher education in India faces serious challenges. It needs a systematic overhaul so that we can educate much larger numbers without diluting academic standards. This is imperative because the transformation of economy and society in the 21st century would depend, in significant part, on the spread and the quality of education among our people, particularly in the sphere of higher education. It is only an inclusive society that can provide the foundations for a knowledge society.
         The challenges that confront higher education in India are clear. It needs a massive expansion of opportunities for higher education, to 1500 universities nationwide, that would enable India to attain a gross enrollment ration of at least 15% by 2015. It is just as important to raise the average quality of higher education in the very sphere. At the same time, it is essential to create institutions that are exemplars of excellence at par with the best in the world. In the pursuit of these objectives, providing people with access to higher education in a socially inclusive manner is imperative. The realization of these objectives, combined with access. would not only develop the skills and capabilities we need for the economy but would also help transform India into a knowledge economy and society.

    ...view full instructions

    According to the passage, which one of the following is incorrect?
    Solution
    As stated in the last sentence of the second paragraph- 'Islands of excellence in professional education such an Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institute of Management (IIMs), are valuable complements but cannot be substitutes for universities which provide educational opportunities for people at large. Therefore option (a) is the correct choice.
  • Question 6
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    The question in this section is based on a single passage. The question is to be answered on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Kindly note that more than one of the choices may conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the most appropriate answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.

         The spread of education in society is at the foundation of success in countries that are latecomers to development. In the quest for development, primary education is absolutely essential because it creates the base. But higher education is just as important for it provides the cutting edge. Universities are the life-blood of higher education. Islands of excellence in professional education, such as Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), are valuable complements but cannot be substituted for universities which provide educational opportunities for people at large.
         There can be no doubt that higher education has made a significant contribution to economic development, social progress and political democracy in independent India. It is a source of dynamism for the economy. It has created social opportunities for people, it has fostered the vibrant democracy in our polity. It has provided a beginning for the creation of a knowledge society. But it would be a mistake to focus on its strengths alone. It has weaknesses that are cause for serious concern.
         There is, in fact, a quiet crisis in higher education in India that runs deep. It is not yet discernible simply because there are pockets of excellence, an enormous reservoir of talented young people and an intense competition in the admissions process.
    And, in some important spheres, we continue to reap the benefits of what was sown in higher education 50 years ago by the founding fathers of the republic. The reality is that we have miles to go. The proportion of our population, in the age group 18-24, that enters the world of higher education is around 7%, which is only one-half the average for Asia. The opportunities for higher education, in terms of the number of places in universities, are simply not enough in relation to our need. What is more, the quality of higher education is most of our universities requires substantial improvement.
         It is clear that the system of higher education in India faces serious challenges. It needs a systematic overhaul so that we can educate much larger numbers without diluting academic standards. This is imperative because the transformation of economy and society in the 21st century would depend, in significant part, on the spread and the quality of education among our people, particularly in the sphere of higher education. It is only an inclusive society that can provide the foundations for a knowledge society.
         The challenges that confront higher education in India are clear. It needs a massive expansion of opportunities for higher education, to 1500 universities nationwide, that would enable India to attain a gross enrollment ration of at least 15% by 2015. It is just as important to raise the average quality of higher education in the very sphere. At the same time, it is essential to create institutions that are exemplars of excellence at par with the best in the world. In the pursuit of these objectives, providing people with access to higher education in a socially inclusive manner is imperative. The realization of these objectives, combined with access. would not only develop the skills and capabilities we need for the economy but would also help transform India into a knowledge economy and society.

    ...view full instructions

    According to the passage, which of the following is correct
    Solution
    All the given options are correct as discussed in the passage and therefore option (d) is the answer.
  • Question 7
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for the blank:
         When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased, so has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledgling has grown tremendously.
         And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetual on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backward.
         Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong-India has fared abysmally. It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had.
         It suffered hardly or not at all during World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others, who could be ranked among the world's best) and excellent business acumen. Yet today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top.
         Hong Kong is a powerhouse. So, is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
         The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally encouraging inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only, when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent.
         The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it opened under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks, who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an excisable wart.
         The high expropriatory rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of the industry for the public sector and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude.
         The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth. Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide.
         But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself or that of more than a handful of ministers has changed, is open to question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations.
         Transparency is still a long way off. And there is no existing policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labor is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labor, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labor. In other ways too, the government hurts industries.
         Public sector monopolies like the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited make it possible for Indian business to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad.
         The infrastructure is in a shambles party because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business and partly because it does not have the stomach to charge market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then, of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.

    ...view full instructions

    According to writer,  _________
    Solution
    In the passage, it is mentioned that 'In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses.' The word myopic means- short-sighted and therefore option (a) is the only correct choice.
  • Question 8
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for the blank:
         When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased, so has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledgling has grown tremendously.
         And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetual on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backward.
         Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong-India has fared abysmally. It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had.
         It suffered hardly or not at all during World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others, who could be ranked among the world's best) and excellent business acumen. Yet today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top.
         Hong Kong is a powerhouse. So, is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
         The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally encouraging inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only, when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent.
         The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it opened under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks, who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an excisable wart.
         The high expropriatory rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of the industry for the public sector and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude.
         The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth. Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide.
         But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself or that of more than a handful of ministers has changed, is open to question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations.
         Transparency is still a long way off. And there is no existing policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labor is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labor, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labor. In other ways too, the government hurts industries.
         Public sector monopolies like the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited make it possible for Indian business to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad.
         The infrastructure is in a shambles party because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business and partly because it does not have the stomach to charge market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then, of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.

    ...view full instructions

    According to the writer, India should have performed better than the other Asia nations because
    Solution
    In the second stanza. last sentence it has been mentioned that 'It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had'. therefore option (b) is the correct answer.
  • Question 9
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for the blank:
         When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased, so has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledgling has grown tremendously.
         And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetual on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backward.
         Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong-India has fared abysmally. It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had.
         It suffered hardly or not at all during World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others, who could be ranked among the world's best) and excellent business acumen. Yet today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top.
         Hong Kong is a powerhouse. So, is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
         The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally encouraging inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only, when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent.
         The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it opened under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks, who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an excisable wart.
         The high expropriatory rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of the industry for the public sector and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude.
         The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth. Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide.
         But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself or that of more than a handful of ministers has changed, is open to question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations.
         Transparency is still a long way off. And there is no existing policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labor is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labor, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labor. In other ways too, the government hurts industries.
         Public sector monopolies like the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited make it possible for Indian business to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad.
         The infrastructure is in a shambles party because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business and partly because it does not have the stomach to charge market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then, of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.

    ...view full instructions

    The writer's attitude towards the government is
    Solution
    The writer's attitude towards the Government is critical because he expresses and analyses the merits and faults of the Government. Option (a) is the correct choice.
  • Question 10
    1 / -0

    Directions For Questions

    In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for the blank:
         When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other fronts, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, of course, life expectancy has increased, so has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledgling has grown tremendously.
         And as far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetual on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when the rest of the world is running is almost as bad as standing still or walking backward.
         Compared with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong-India has fared abysmally. It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had.
         It suffered hardly or not at all during World War II. It had advantages like an English speaking elite quality scientific manpower (including a Nobel laureate and others, who could be ranked among the world's best) and excellent business acumen. Yet today, when countries are ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top.
         Hong Kong is a powerhouse. So, is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car.
         The reasons list themselves. Topmost is economic isolationism. The government discouraged imports and self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of a totally encouraging inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only, when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent.
         The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it opened under the conviction that businessmen were little more than crooks, who were to be prevented from entering the most important areas of the economy, who were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, who were to be tolerated in the same way as an excisable wart.
         The high expropriatory rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of the industry for the public sector and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principal manifestations of this attitude.
         The government forgot that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created. The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth. Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed. Tax rates have fallen. Licensing has been all but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been opened wide.
         But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the foreign exchange bankruptcy of 1991 and the recognition that the government could no longer muster the funds to support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Whether the attitude of the government itself or that of more than a handful of ministers has changed, is open to question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business still has to negotiate a welter of negotiations.
         Transparency is still a long way off. And there is no existing policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray an inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labor is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labor, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labor. In other ways too, the government hurts industries.
         Public sector monopolies like the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited make it possible for Indian business to operate only at a cost several times that of their counterparts abroad.
         The infrastructure is in a shambles party because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business and partly because it does not have the stomach to charge market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then, of course, the world would have moved even farther ahead.

    ...view full instructions

    The example of Korean Cielo has been presented to highlight
    Solution
    In the passage it is mentioned that, 'If a symbol were needed of how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Cielos are sold in India, no one in South Korea is rushing to buy an Indian car. From the above extract it is clear that option (b) is the correct answer.
Self Studies
User
Question Analysis

  • Correct -

  • Wrong -

  • Skipped -

My Perfomance
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition
Self Studies Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Self Studies
Click on Allow to receive notifications
Allow Notification
Self Studies
Self Studies Self Studies
To enable notifications follow this 2 steps:
  • First Click on Secure Icon Self Studies
  • Second click on the toggle icon
Allow Notification
Get latest Exam Updates & FREE Study Material Alerts!
Self Studies ×
Open Now