English Test - ...

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.