English Languag...

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The new powers vested in a UN agency’s boss should, in theory, cut the risk of killer diseases raging around the world. With its big electronic screens and global satellite links, the command centre feels like the heart of a vast military campaign. Every morning, there are strategy sessions to mull over the latest intelligence, and rapid-response teams are sent to remote places at the commander’s bidding.

In this case, the control room answers not to any general, but to the World Health Organisation (WHO) – the Geneva-based United Nations agency whose job is to monitor and respond to infectious diseases. In recent years, it has nipped in the bud over six dozen outbreaks that could have led to global crises. Unless outbreaks are spotted early, and virus strains shared with researchers worldwide, there is a recurring risk of a pandemic similar to the strains of influenza that caused havoc over the past century.

This may sound obvious but, in practice, countries don’t always help the WHO. In 2002, when the respiratory disease dubbed SARS emerged in China, the authorities hid the early signs for fear of hurting trade and tourism. More recently, Indonesia has been mired in a more intractable dispute – raising hard questions about the balance of economic power in the world.

Last year, the Indonesians stopped giving the WHO samples of the H5 virus, which is responsible for avian flu, a disease that has forced a mass slaughter of poultry in many countries and could, if it mutates, cause a deadly epidemic among humans. There was little the WHO could do in response

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The new powers vested in a UN agency’s boss should, in theory, cut the risk of killer diseases raging around the world. With its big electronic screens and global satellite links, the command centre feels like the heart of a vast military campaign. Every morning, there are strategy sessions to mull over the latest intelligence, and rapid-response teams are sent to remote places at the commander’s bidding.

In this case, the control room answers not to any general, but to the World Health Organisation (WHO) – the Geneva-based United Nations agency whose job is to monitor and respond to infectious diseases. In recent years, it has nipped in the bud over six dozen outbreaks that could have led to global crises. Unless outbreaks are spotted early, and virus strains shared with researchers worldwide, there is a recurring risk of a pandemic similar to the strains of influenza that caused havoc over the past century.

This may sound obvious but, in practice, countries don’t always help the WHO. In 2002, when the respiratory disease dubbed SARS emerged in China, the authorities hid the early signs for fear of hurting trade and tourism. More recently, Indonesia has been mired in a more intractable dispute – raising hard questions about the balance of economic power in the world.

Last year, the Indonesians stopped giving the WHO samples of the H5 virus, which is responsible for avian flu, a disease that has forced a mass slaughter of poultry in many countries and could, if it mutates, cause a deadly epidemic among humans. There was little the WHO could do in response

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The new powers vested in a UN agency’s boss should, in theory, cut the risk of killer diseases raging around the world. With its big electronic screens and global satellite links, the command centre feels like the heart of a vast military campaign. Every morning, there are strategy sessions to mull over the latest intelligence, and rapid-response teams are sent to remote places at the commander’s bidding.

In this case, the control room answers not to any general, but to the World Health Organisation (WHO) – the Geneva-based United Nations agency whose job is to monitor and respond to infectious diseases. In recent years, it has nipped in the bud over six dozen outbreaks that could have led to global crises. Unless outbreaks are spotted early, and virus strains shared with researchers worldwide, there is a recurring risk of a pandemic similar to the strains of influenza that caused havoc over the past century.

This may sound obvious but, in practice, countries don’t always help the WHO. In 2002, when the respiratory disease dubbed SARS emerged in China, the authorities hid the early signs for fear of hurting trade and tourism. More recently, Indonesia has been mired in a more intractable dispute – raising hard questions about the balance of economic power in the world.

Last year, the Indonesians stopped giving the WHO samples of the H5 virus, which is responsible for avian flu, a disease that has forced a mass slaughter of poultry in many countries and could, if it mutates, cause a deadly epidemic among humans. There was little the WHO could do in response

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The new powers vested in a UN agency’s boss should, in theory, cut the risk of killer diseases raging around the world. With its big electronic screens and global satellite links, the command centre feels like the heart of a vast military campaign. Every morning, there are strategy sessions to mull over the latest intelligence, and rapid-response teams are sent to remote places at the commander’s bidding.

In this case, the control room answers not to any general, but to the World Health Organisation (WHO) – the Geneva-based United Nations agency whose job is to monitor and respond to infectious diseases. In recent years, it has nipped in the bud over six dozen outbreaks that could have led to global crises. Unless outbreaks are spotted early, and virus strains shared with researchers worldwide, there is a recurring risk of a pandemic similar to the strains of influenza that caused havoc over the past century.

This may sound obvious but, in practice, countries don’t always help the WHO. In 2002, when the respiratory disease dubbed SARS emerged in China, the authorities hid the early signs for fear of hurting trade and tourism. More recently, Indonesia has been mired in a more intractable dispute – raising hard questions about the balance of economic power in the world.

Last year, the Indonesians stopped giving the WHO samples of the H5 virus, which is responsible for avian flu, a disease that has forced a mass slaughter of poultry in many countries and could, if it mutates, cause a deadly epidemic among humans. There was little the WHO could do in response

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The women’s reservation bill has once again been beaten back. How often have we heard sneers that the bill is an insulting handout; that women who ask for it are admitting to their incompetence. Here lies the catch. Statistics prove that a greater percentage of women fielded, win elections than men. In truth, women want reservations not as patronage, not because they are incapable, but because they are shut out of the electoral process. And they are shut out precisely because of their winnability and competence. In a situation in which tickets are distributed on merit, there is no doubt that women would pose a serious challenge to the entrenched patriarchal political order. Indeed, this is why women aspirants do not even make it to the first stage in the electoral process: getting party tickets. Forget reservation. What stops our so-called mass leaders from giving out tickets to more women in their own parties? We have heard a score of excuses, including the one about a woman’s place being in the kitchen. In reality, though, the mostly-male parties see women politicians as a threat.

The other favourite gripe against the Bill is that it is mere tokenism. In that case, why has Mandal become the watchword in today’s politics? It was similarly dismissed to begin with. Let’s face it. Symbols are powerful catalysts of social change. ‘Mandalization’ has transformed the total character of our democracy. The women’s quota in panchayats reinforces this point. For every woman who is seen as a proxy for a powerful male politician, there has been another who has quietly asserted herself and ushered in phenomenal social changes – from education to healthcare to women’s rights. In short, everything male politicians are loath to take up. The tragedy is that the panchayat system has thrown up aspiring women candidates who have no upward political mobility. For these perfectly capable women, a seat in the legislature is a right and not a sop. But there is no way they can enter this rarified space. End this deliberate exclusion and there will be no need for reservation.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The women’s reservation bill has once again been beaten back. How often have we heard sneers that the bill is an insulting handout; that women who ask for it are admitting to their incompetence. Here lies the catch. Statistics prove that a greater percentage of women fielded, win elections than men. In truth, women want reservations not as patronage, not because they are incapable, but because they are shut out of the electoral process. And they are shut out precisely because of their winnability and competence. In a situation in which tickets are distributed on merit, there is no doubt that women would pose a serious challenge to the entrenched patriarchal political order. Indeed, this is why women aspirants do not even make it to the first stage in the electoral process: getting party tickets. Forget reservation. What stops our so-called mass leaders from giving out tickets to more women in their own parties? We have heard a score of excuses, including the one about a woman’s place being in the kitchen. In reality, though, the mostly-male parties see women politicians as a threat.

The other favourite gripe against the Bill is that it is mere tokenism. In that case, why has Mandal become the watchword in today’s politics? It was similarly dismissed to begin with. Let’s face it. Symbols are powerful catalysts of social change. ‘Mandalization’ has transformed the total character of our democracy. The women’s quota in panchayats reinforces this point. For every woman who is seen as a proxy for a powerful male politician, there has been another who has quietly asserted herself and ushered in phenomenal social changes – from education to healthcare to women’s rights. In short, everything male politicians are loath to take up. The tragedy is that the panchayat system has thrown up aspiring women candidates who have no upward political mobility. For these perfectly capable women, a seat in the legislature is a right and not a sop. But there is no way they can enter this rarified space. End this deliberate exclusion and there will be no need for reservation.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The women’s reservation bill has once again been beaten back. How often have we heard sneers that the bill is an insulting handout; that women who ask for it are admitting to their incompetence. Here lies the catch. Statistics prove that a greater percentage of women fielded, win elections than men. In truth, women want reservations not as patronage, not because they are incapable, but because they are shut out of the electoral process. And they are shut out precisely because of their winnability and competence. In a situation in which tickets are distributed on merit, there is no doubt that women would pose a serious challenge to the entrenched patriarchal political order. Indeed, this is why women aspirants do not even make it to the first stage in the electoral process: getting party tickets. Forget reservation. What stops our so-called mass leaders from giving out tickets to more women in their own parties? We have heard a score of excuses, including the one about a woman’s place being in the kitchen. In reality, though, the mostly-male parties see women politicians as a threat.

The other favourite gripe against the Bill is that it is mere tokenism. In that case, why has Mandal become the watchword in today’s politics? It was similarly dismissed to begin with. Let’s face it. Symbols are powerful catalysts of social change. ‘Mandalization’ has transformed the total character of our democracy. The women’s quota in panchayats reinforces this point. For every woman who is seen as a proxy for a powerful male politician, there has been another who has quietly asserted herself and ushered in phenomenal social changes – from education to healthcare to women’s rights. In short, everything male politicians are loath to take up. The tragedy is that the panchayat system has thrown up aspiring women candidates who have no upward political mobility. For these perfectly capable women, a seat in the legislature is a right and not a sop. But there is no way they can enter this rarified space. End this deliberate exclusion and there will be no need for reservation.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

The women’s reservation bill has once again been beaten back. How often have we heard sneers that the bill is an insulting handout; that women who ask for it are admitting to their incompetence. Here lies the catch. Statistics prove that a greater percentage of women fielded, win elections than men. In truth, women want reservations not as patronage, not because they are incapable, but because they are shut out of the electoral process. And they are shut out precisely because of their winnability and competence. In a situation in which tickets are distributed on merit, there is no doubt that women would pose a serious challenge to the entrenched patriarchal political order. Indeed, this is why women aspirants do not even make it to the first stage in the electoral process: getting party tickets. Forget reservation. What stops our so-called mass leaders from giving out tickets to more women in their own parties? We have heard a score of excuses, including the one about a woman’s place being in the kitchen. In reality, though, the mostly-male parties see women politicians as a threat.

The other favourite gripe against the Bill is that it is mere tokenism. In that case, why has Mandal become the watchword in today’s politics? It was similarly dismissed to begin with. Let’s face it. Symbols are powerful catalysts of social change. ‘Mandalization’ has transformed the total character of our democracy. The women’s quota in panchayats reinforces this point. For every woman who is seen as a proxy for a powerful male politician, there has been another who has quietly asserted herself and ushered in phenomenal social changes – from education to healthcare to women’s rights. In short, everything male politicians are loath to take up. The tragedy is that the panchayat system has thrown up aspiring women candidates who have no upward political mobility. For these perfectly capable women, a seat in the legislature is a right and not a sop. But there is no way they can enter this rarified space. End this deliberate exclusion and there will be no need for reservation.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

Hardly a day goes by without some further revelation about the disturbing state of childhood obesity and the diseases of old age that teenagers are beginning to suffer from. One recent study, published in the Financial Times, found that the number of American children taking medication for the type of diabetes normally found in ageing obese people had more than doubled between 2001 and 2005. A worrying percentage of them were also taking drugs for such chronic conditions as hypertension and high cholesterol as well as Type 2 diabetes.

The latest figures suggest that a third of American children are either overweight or at risk of becoming so. If the trend continues, today’s children will be the first generation of Americans to have a shorter lifespan (by two to five years) than their parents. The life expectancy of Americans today is 77.6 years, one of the lowest in the developed world.

While most people concerned about their weight fixate on fats and carbohydrates, nutritionists say the real problem is sugar. And not just any old sugar, but the high–fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that has replaced cane and beet sugar in processed foods and soft drinks over the past 25 years. Nowadays, everything from bread, pastries and breakfast cereals to yoghurts, ketchup, candy and coke contain large dollops of HFCS. The food industry uses blends of 90% fructose and 10% glucose for baked goods and 55% fructose and 45% glucose for soft drinks.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

Hardly a day goes by without some further revelation about the disturbing state of childhood obesity and the diseases of old age that teenagers are beginning to suffer from. One recent study, published in the Financial Times, found that the number of American children taking medication for the type of diabetes normally found in ageing obese people had more than doubled between 2001 and 2005. A worrying percentage of them were also taking drugs for such chronic conditions as hypertension and high cholesterol as well as Type 2 diabetes.

The latest figures suggest that a third of American children are either overweight or at risk of becoming so. If the trend continues, today’s children will be the first generation of Americans to have a shorter lifespan (by two to five years) than their parents. The life expectancy of Americans today is 77.6 years, one of the lowest in the developed world.

While most people concerned about their weight fixate on fats and carbohydrates, nutritionists say the real problem is sugar. And not just any old sugar, but the high–fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that has replaced cane and beet sugar in processed foods and soft drinks over the past 25 years. Nowadays, everything from bread, pastries and breakfast cereals to yoghurts, ketchup, candy and coke contain large dollops of HFCS. The food industry uses blends of 90% fructose and 10% glucose for baked goods and 55% fructose and 45% glucose for soft drinks.