English Test-1

Ever since the final whistle brought World Cup 2006 to a close, the atmosphere in the two neighbouring capitals could not be more different. In Rome, there were scenes of euphoria over Italy 's victory. Ecstatic Italian demonstrators partied into the early hours of the morning. The victorious team was given a rapturous welcome both at the airport and in Rome 's Circolo Massimo, where over a million fans braved the Roman sun to greet the returning heroes. The great expanse of the Circolo Massimo was strewn with red, white and green flags, while the air was thick with the crowd 's hooting, chanting and music-making. Late on Monday the winning team was expected to be greeted by Prime Minister Romano Prodi. Then, a parade through the streets of Rome, with the solid gold trophy in an open top bus.
In Paris, the Champs Elysees, which had seen crowds of up to 5,00,000 when France entered the quarterfinals and then the semifinals, had barely 50,000 fans who felt they had to tell their team it had been heroic despite the defeat. But their heart was not in it. A special TV show organised to celebrate victory turned into a virtual wake. [Mournful faces were trying to mask a sense of overwhelming sorrow, not least because superstar Zidane 's final match had been tarnished by his expulsion from the game.]
There will be no parade down the Champs Elysees as had been planned. The players had lunch with President Jacques Chirac on their return. But a tight-lipped Raymond Domenech said brusquely: "I am the manager,
I decide. There will be no parade."Instead, fans had a glimpse of their favourite stars from a balcony of the chic Crillon Hotel at the Place de la Concorde. In Italy, on the other hand, the victory was experienced as a double triumph, with the feeling that Italians had avenged their Euro 2000 defeat at the hands of the French. The Italian press was lavish in its praise for the squadra azzura with headlines like "The world Belongs to Us "or simply, "Champions."Newspapers hoped this victory would augur a new era of hope and economic recovery for Italy.

In the first line of the passage, which are the two capitals that the author is referring to?

Ever since the final whistle brought World Cup 2006 to a close, the atmosphere in the two neighbouring capitals could not be more different. In Rome, there were scenes of euphoria over Italy 's victory. Ecstatic Italian demonstrators partied into the early hours of the morning. The victorious team was given a rapturous welcome both at the airport and in Rome 's Circolo Massimo, where over a million fans braved the Roman sun to greet the returning heroes. The great expanse of the Circolo Massimo was strewn with red, white and green flags, while the air was thick with the crowd 's hooting, chanting and music-making. Late on Monday the winning team was expected to be greeted by Prime Minister Romano Prodi. Then, a parade through the streets of Rome, with the solid gold trophy in an open top bus.
In Paris, the Champs Elysees, which had seen crowds of up to 5,00,000 when France entered the quarterfinals and then the semifinals, had barely 50,000 fans who felt they had to tell their team it had been heroic despite the defeat. But their heart was not in it. A special TV show organised to celebrate victory turned into a virtual wake. [Mournful faces were trying to mask a sense of overwhelming sorrow, not least because superstar Zidane 's final match had been tarnished by his expulsion from the game.]
There will be no parade down the Champs Elysees as had been planned. The players had lunch with President Jacques Chirac on their return. But a tight-lipped Raymond Domenech said brusquely: "I am the manager,
I decide. There will be no parade."Instead, fans had a glimpse of their favourite stars from a balcony of the chic Crillon Hotel at the Place de la Concorde. In Italy, on the other hand, the victory was experienced as a double triumph, with the feeling that Italians had avenged their Euro 2000 defeat at the hands of the French. The Italian press was lavish in its praise for the squadra azzura with headlines like "The world Belongs to Us "or simply, "Champions."Newspapers hoped this victory would augur a new era of hope and economic recovery for Italy.

What does the word 'tarnished 'mean in the context of the passage?

Ever since the final whistle brought World Cup 2006 to a close, the atmosphere in the two neighbouring capitals could not be more different. In Rome, there were scenes of euphoria over Italy 's victory. Ecstatic Italian demonstrators partied into the early hours of the morning. The victorious team was given a rapturous welcome both at the airport and in Rome 's Circolo Massimo, where over a million fans braved the Roman sun to greet the returning heroes. The great expanse of the Circolo Massimo was strewn with red, white and green flags, while the air was thick with the crowd 's hooting, chanting and music-making. Late on Monday the winning team was expected to be greeted by Prime Minister Romano Prodi. Then, a parade through the streets of Rome, with the solid gold trophy in an open top bus.
In Paris, the Champs Elysees, which had seen crowds of up to 5,00,000 when France entered the quarterfinals and then the semifinals, had barely 50,000 fans who felt they had to tell their team it had been heroic despite the defeat. But their heart was not in it. A special TV show organised to celebrate victory turned into a virtual wake. [Mournful faces were trying to mask a sense of overwhelming sorrow, not least because superstar Zidane 's final match had been tarnished by his expulsion from the game.]
There will be no parade down the Champs Elysees as had been planned. The players had lunch with President Jacques Chirac on their return. But a tight-lipped Raymond Domenech said brusquely: "I am the manager,
I decide. There will be no parade."Instead, fans had a glimpse of their favourite stars from a balcony of the chic Crillon Hotel at the Place de la Concorde. In Italy, on the other hand, the victory was experienced as a double triumph, with the feeling that Italians had avenged their Euro 2000 defeat at the hands of the French. The Italian press was lavish in its praise for the squadra azzura with headlines like "The world Belongs to Us "or simply, "Champions."Newspapers hoped this victory would augur a new era of hope and economic recovery for Italy.

Why did the French fans gather to welcome their team despite its defeat in World Cup 2006?

Ever since the final whistle brought World Cup 2006 to a close, the atmosphere in the two neighbouring capitals could not be more different. In Rome, there were scenes of euphoria over Italy 's victory. Ecstatic Italian demonstrators partied into the early hours of the morning. The victorious team was given a rapturous welcome both at the airport and in Rome 's Circolo Massimo, where over a million fans braved the Roman sun to greet the returning heroes. The great expanse of the Circolo Massimo was strewn with red, white and green flags, while the air was thick with the crowd 's hooting, chanting and music-making. Late on Monday the winning team was expected to be greeted by Prime Minister Romano Prodi. Then, a parade through the streets of Rome, with the solid gold trophy in an open top bus.
In Paris, the Champs Elysees, which had seen crowds of up to 5,00,000 when France entered the quarterfinals and then the semifinals, had barely 50,000 fans who felt they had to tell their team it had been heroic despite the defeat. But their heart was not in it. A special TV show organised to celebrate victory turned into a virtual wake. [Mournful faces were trying to mask a sense of overwhelming sorrow, not least because superstar Zidane 's final match had been tarnished by his expulsion from the game.]
There will be no parade down the Champs Elysees as had been planned. The players had lunch with President Jacques Chirac on their return. But a tight-lipped Raymond Domenech said brusquely: "I am the manager,
I decide. There will be no parade."Instead, fans had a glimpse of their favourite stars from a balcony of the chic Crillon Hotel at the Place de la Concorde. In Italy, on the other hand, the victory was experienced as a double triumph, with the feeling that Italians had avenged their Euro 2000 defeat at the hands of the French. The Italian press was lavish in its praise for the squadra azzura with headlines like "The world Belongs to Us "or simply, "Champions."Newspapers hoped this victory would augur a new era of hope and economic recovery for Italy.

Which of the following is incorrect with respect to the passage?
1. Zidane was excluded from the football team before the final match got over.
2. France mourned over a not-so-glorious end of Zidane 's career.
3. Italy has lost a match against France.
4. Italy triumphed over France twice in World Cup 2006.

Ever since the final whistle brought World Cup 2006 to a close, the atmosphere in the two neighbouring capitals could not be more different. In Rome, there were scenes of euphoria over Italy 's victory. Ecstatic Italian demonstrators partied into the early hours of the morning. The victorious team was given a rapturous welcome both at the airport and in Rome 's Circolo Massimo, where over a million fans braved the Roman sun to greet the returning heroes. The great expanse of the Circolo Massimo was strewn with red, white and green flags, while the air was thick with the crowd 's hooting, chanting and music-making. Late on Monday the winning team was expected to be greeted by Prime Minister Romano Prodi. Then, a parade through the streets of Rome, with the solid gold trophy in an open top bus.
In Paris, the Champs Elysees, which had seen crowds of up to 5,00,000 when France entered the quarterfinals and then the semifinals, had barely 50,000 fans who felt they had to tell their team it had been heroic despite the defeat. But their heart was not in it. A special TV show organised to celebrate victory turned into a virtual wake. [Mournful faces were trying to mask a sense of overwhelming sorrow, not least because superstar Zidane 's final match had been tarnished by his expulsion from the game.]
There will be no parade down the Champs Elysees as had been planned. The players had lunch with President Jacques Chirac on their return. But a tight-lipped Raymond Domenech said brusquely: "I am the manager,
I decide. There will be no parade."Instead, fans had a glimpse of their favourite stars from a balcony of the chic Crillon Hotel at the Place de la Concorde. In Italy, on the other hand, the victory was experienced as a double triumph, with the feeling that Italians had avenged their Euro 2000 defeat at the hands of the French. The Italian press was lavish in its praise for the squadra azzura with headlines like "The world Belongs to Us "or simply, "Champions."Newspapers hoped this victory would augur a new era of hope and economic recovery for Italy.

Choose the most appropriate title for the given passage:

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank 's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds "-the World 's Bank and the Bank 's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capita markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver 's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.
In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank 's World ". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable "came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.
Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff. Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank 's conventional method of conducting business. Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities. She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world 's most important development groups.

Under which environments does Weaver assess World Bank 's hypocrisy?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank 's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds "-the World 's Bank and the Bank 's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capita markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver 's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.
In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank 's World ". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable "came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.
Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff. Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank 's conventional method of conducting business. Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities. She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world 's most important development groups.

What changes does Weaver feel the bank needs to bring in for true reform?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank 's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds "-the World 's Bank and the Bank 's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capita markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver 's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.
In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank 's World ". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable "came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.
Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff. Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank 's conventional method of conducting business. Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities. She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world 's most important development groups.

It can be inferred that Weaver 's attitude to the World Bank is best reflected in which of the following statements?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank 's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds "-the World 's Bank and the Bank 's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capita markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver 's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.
In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank 's World ". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable "came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.
Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff. Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank 's conventional method of conducting business. Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities. She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world 's most important development groups.

What is the tone of the author?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank 's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds "-the World 's Bank and the Bank 's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capita markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver 's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.
In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank 's World ". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable "came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.
Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff. Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank 's conventional method of conducting business. Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities. She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world 's most important development groups.

Consider the following statements:
1. The World Bank engaged in reforms in the 1980s.
2. Every operation of the World Bank is open to extensive reviews.
According to the above passage, which of the statements is/are valid?