English Test - ...

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

With an aim to check flow of black money and evasion of taxes through stock market, market regulator SEBI has decided to impose hefty penalty on brokers facilitating such transactions from tomorrow. The regulator recently came across a loophole in its existing regulations, which was being abused by stock brokers for facilitating tax evasion and flow of black money through fictitious trades in lieu of hefty commissions. To remove this anomaly, SEBI has asked stock exchanges to penalise the brokers transferring trades from one trading account to another after terming them as ‘punching’ errors. The penalty could be as high as 2% of the value of shares traded in the ‘wrong’ account, as per new rules coming into effect from August 1.

In a widely-prevalent, but secretly operated practice, the people looking to evade taxes approach certain brokers to show losses in their stock trading accounts, so that their earnings from other sources are not taxed. These brokers are also approached by people looking to show their black money as earnings made through stock market. In exchange for a commission, generally 5-10% of the total amount, these brokers show desired profits or losses in the accounts of their clients after transferring trades from other accounts, created for such purposes only.

The brokers generally keep conducting both ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ trades in these fictitious accounts so that they can be used accordingly when approached by such clients.

In the market parlance, these deals are known as profit or loss shopping. While profit is purchased to show black money as earnings from the market, the losses are purchased to avoid tax on earnings from other sources.

As the transfer of trades is not allowed from one account to the other in general cases, the brokers show the trades conducted in their own fictitious accounts as ‘punching’ errors. The regulations allow transfer of trades in the cases of genuine errors, as at times ‘punching’ or placing of orders can be made for a wrong client. To check any abuse of this rule, SEBI has asked the bourses to put in place a robust mechanism to identify whether the errors are genuine or not. At the same time, the bourses have been asked to levy penalty on the brokers transferring their non-institutional trades from one account to the other. The penalty would be 1% of the traded value in wrong account, if such trades are up to 5% of the broker’s total non-institutional turnover in a month. The penalty would be 2% of trade value in wrong account, if such transactions exceed 5% of total monthly turnover in a month.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

With an aim to check flow of black money and evasion of taxes through stock market, market regulator SEBI has decided to impose hefty penalty on brokers facilitating such transactions from tomorrow. The regulator recently came across a loophole in its existing regulations, which was being abused by stock brokers for facilitating tax evasion and flow of black money through fictitious trades in lieu of hefty commissions. To remove this anomaly, SEBI has asked stock exchanges to penalise the brokers transferring trades from one trading account to another after terming them as ‘punching’ errors. The penalty could be as high as 2% of the value of shares traded in the ‘wrong’ account, as per new rules coming into effect from August 1.

In a widely-prevalent, but secretly operated practice, the people looking to evade taxes approach certain brokers to show losses in their stock trading accounts, so that their earnings from other sources are not taxed. These brokers are also approached by people looking to show their black money as earnings made through stock market. In exchange for a commission, generally 5-10% of the total amount, these brokers show desired profits or losses in the accounts of their clients after transferring trades from other accounts, created for such purposes only.

The brokers generally keep conducting both ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ trades in these fictitious accounts so that they can be used accordingly when approached by such clients.

In the market parlance, these deals are known as profit or loss shopping. While profit is purchased to show black money as earnings from the market, the losses are purchased to avoid tax on earnings from other sources.

As the transfer of trades is not allowed from one account to the other in general cases, the brokers show the trades conducted in their own fictitious accounts as ‘punching’ errors. The regulations allow transfer of trades in the cases of genuine errors, as at times ‘punching’ or placing of orders can be made for a wrong client. To check any abuse of this rule, SEBI has asked the bourses to put in place a robust mechanism to identify whether the errors are genuine or not. At the same time, the bourses have been asked to levy penalty on the brokers transferring their non-institutional trades from one account to the other. The penalty would be 1% of the traded value in wrong account, if such trades are up to 5% of the broker’s total non-institutional turnover in a month. The penalty would be 2% of trade value in wrong account, if such transactions exceed 5% of total monthly turnover in a month.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertusburg.) Every major power in Europe participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £1,072,783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertusburg.) Every major power in Europe participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £1,072,783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertusburg.) Every major power in Europe participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £1,072,783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertusburg.) Every major power in Europe participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £1,072,783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertusburg.) Every major power in Europe participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £1,072,783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertusburg.) Every major power in Europe participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £1,072,783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.

Direction: Read the passage and answer the following questions.

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.