In this question given below which one of the five answer figures on the right should come after the problem figures on the left, if the sequence were continued the next figure will be:
  • a)
    1
  • b)
    2
  • c)
    3
  • d)
    4
  • e)
    5
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Imk Pathshala answered  •  8 hours ago
In each step, single element in the row or column is shifted to center position.
Remaining elements are shifted by two positions in clockwise and anti-clockwise direction alternately.
New element is added in the empty row or column.

Directions: Read the following information carefully and answer the question given below-
6 bikes were parked in a parking lot and were facing the North. The bikes were named A, B, C, D, E and F not necessarily in the same order. The distance between any two neighbouring bikes was a consecutive integral multiple of 4m. The distance increased left to right. Assume that there was no space after the extreme ends.
C was 76m to the right of bike A
  • Bike B was parked 3rd to the left of bike C
  • Bike E was parked 68m away from the left end.
  • D was 48m away from one of the ends.
  • Bike F went 60m towards west, turned right and moved for 40m. It then turned left and moved 20m and stopped at point X
  • Bike E moved 52m towards east, took a right turn and moved 23m and stopped at point Y
  • Bike M was parked 20m to the east of point Y. It moved 47m towards North and stopped at point Z.
    How much bike M must travel to reach point X from point Z?
    ... more

    Nipun Tuteja answered  •  8 hours ago
    • Bike E was parked 68m away from the left end.
      Case 1:
      Case 2:
    • C was 76m to the right of bike A
    • Bike B was parked 3rd to the left of bike C
    • D was 48m away from one of the ends. Thus, case 1 is invalid.
    • Bike F went 60m towards west, turned right and moved for 40m. It then turned left and moved 20m and stopped at point X
    • Bike E moved 52m towards east, took a right turn and moved 23m and stopped at point Y
    • Bike M was parked 20m to the east of point Y. It moved 47m towards North and stopped at point Z.
    M must travel 16m north, 20m west to reach point X

    Directions: Refer the following data to answer the questions given below.
    There were five running races, 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m and 500 m race. The following data relates to the relative positions of five racers - Santosh, Murugan, Bala, Rajan, and Kabilan in each race.
    In each race, there are five ranks spread among these racers. The person that comes first, second, third, fourth and last in a race gets the rank 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The person, who came first in 100 m, came last in 200 m. The person, who came first in 500 m, came last in 100 m. Murugan and Kabilan secured all ranks, i.e. they were in all positions in one race or the other. Rajan came second in 200 m and 400 m and Murugan was first in 100 m. Bala did not come first or second in any race and was last in one race. The person, who came first in 300 m and 200 m, came last in 500 m. The person, who came first in 400 m, came last in 300 m. The persons who came third in 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m, and 500 m are Bala, Kabilan, Bala, Santosh, and Murugan respectively.
    If all the ranks are added, then the racer with second least value is
    ... more

    Constructing Careers answered  •  8 hours ago
    Construct the table with the following deductions
    1. Put rank no. 3 for all races and rank no. 2 for Rajan in 200 m and 400 m.
    2. Murugan is 1st in 100 m, so he comes last in 200 m.
    4. Bala did not come 1st in anything. So, he must have come 4th in 200 m and Santosh came 1st in 200 m. Therefore, he came 1st in 300 m and last in 500 m.
    5. Since Murugan did not come 1st in 400 m, [he cannot come 1st in 400 m as he came last in 200 m, he came 4th in 400 m, and also he occupied all positions. So he came 2nd in 300 m. So, Kabilan must have come 1st in 400 m and last in 300 m.
    6. Since Bala was the only person who did not come 1st. Rajan must have come 1st in 500 m and 5th in 100 m. Bala must have come 4th in 500 m as he cannot come 2nd.
    Kabilan must have come 4th in 100 m.
    Hence, Option (D) is the correct answer.

    Directions: The following given data gives the information about the number of people including men, women and children, buying clothes from Lifestyle stores in 5 different cities- Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Goa and Jaipur. Total people from all cities who bought from lifestyle are 273200.
    The number of children who bought from Mumbai is 1000 less than from Delhi and 1000 more than from Bangalore and total children buying from all cities is 4800 less than total men which is 79500. The ratio of men buying from Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore is 4:2:5. Number of women buying from Bangalore is 40% less than that of men from Bangalore and also 36(4/11) % more than women from Goa. Total women buying from Delhi, Mumbai and Jaipur are 93000 which is 24% more than total people from Jaipur. Total children from Goa and Jaipur are 5200 more than total men from the two cities. Ratio of men, women and children buying from Jaipur is 18:35:22 and noumber of women buying from Delhi is double of number of children buying from Delhi.
    What is the average of number of women buying from Goa, number of men buying from Jaipur and number of children buying from Jaipur.
    ... more

    Pathways Academy answered  •  8 hours ago
    Among children
    Let Delhi = y
    Mumbai = y - 1000
    Bangalore = y - 2000
    Total men = 79500
    Total children = 79500 - 4800 = 74700
    Total people from Jaipur = 93000/1.24 = 75000
    Now,
    In Jaipur:
    Men = 18*75000/75 = 18000
    Women = 35*75000/75 = 35000
    Children = 22*75000/75 = 22000
    Among Men:
    Let, Delhi = 4m
    Mumbai = 2m
    Bangalore = 5m
    Among women:
    Bangalore = 5m*0.6 = 3m
    Goa = 3m/(1 + 400/1100) = 2.2m
    Delhi + Mumbai + Jaipur = 93000
    So, 3m + 2.2m = {273200 - (79500 + 74700)} - 93000 = 119000 - 93000 = 26000
    m = 5000
    So, Among Men:
    Let, Delhi = 4m = 20000
    Mumbai = 2m = 10000
    Bangalore = 5m = 25000
    Among women:
    Bangalore = 3m = 15000
    Goa = 2.2m = 11000
    Now, men from Goa = 79500 - (20000 + 10000 + 25000 + 18000) = 6500
    Children from Goa + Jaipur = 5200 + (6500 + 18000) = 29700
    Thus, y + y - 1000 + y - 2000 = 74700 - 29700
    y = 16000
    So, Among children:
    Let Delhi = y = 16000
    Mumbai = y - 1000 = 15000
    Bangalore = y - 2000 = 14000
    Jaipur = 22000
    Goa = 29700 - 22000 = 7700
    Women from Delhi = 2*children from Delhi = 2*16000 = 32000
    Women from Mumbai = 119000 - (32000 + 15000 + 11000 + 35000) = 26000
    Now,
    All the data calculated above is tabulated as follows:
    Number of women buying from Goa = 11000
    Number of men buying from Jaipur = 18000
    Number of children buying from Jaipur = 22000
    Average = (11000 + 18000 + 22000)/3 = 17000

    Directions: The following given data gives the information about the number of people including men, women and children, buying clothes from Lifestyle stores in 5 different cities- Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Goa and Jaipur. Total people from all cities who bought from lifestyle are 273200.
    The number of children who bought from Mumbai is 1000 less than from Delhi and 1000 more than from Bangalore and total children buying from all cities is 4800 less than total men which is 79500. The ratio of men buying from Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore is 4:2:5. Number of women buying from Bangalore is 40% less than that of men from Bangalore and also 36(4/11) % more than women from Goa. Total women buying from Delhi, Mumbai and Jaipur are 93000 which is 24% more than total people from Jaipur. Total children from Goa and Jaipur are 5200 more than total men from the two cities. Ratio of men, women and children buying from Jaipur is 18:35:22 and noumber of women buying from Delhi is double of number of children buying from Delhi.
    By what number, total women and children from Delhi and Goa taken together are more or less than total men and women from Mumbai and Jaipur taken together?
    ... more

    Deepti Jindal answered  •  8 hours ago
    Among children
    Let Delhi = y
    Mumbai = y - 1000
    Bangalore = y - 2000
    Total men = 79500
    Total children = 79500 - 4800 = 74700
    Total people from Jaipur = 93000/1.24 = 75000
    Now,
    In Jaipur:
    Men = 18×75000/75 = 18000
    Women = 35×75000/75 = 35000
    Children = 22×75000/75 = 22000
    Among Men:
    ... more

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."
    In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
    So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.
    Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?
    The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.
    As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.
    In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.
    The word 'loathed' as used in the passage, is opposite in meaning to:
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    The word 'loathed' as used in the passage means hated. Option A is eliminated as the word 'reprimanded' means scolded. Option B is eliminated as the word 'bested' means outwitted. Option C is eliminated as 'ignored' means not given importance to. Option E is eliminated as the word 'detested' which means to hate, is a synonym. Option D is the right answer, as the word 'appreciated' means liked; thi... more

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."
    In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
    So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.
    Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?
    The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.
    As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.
    In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.
    Which of the following factors contributed to the growth in the importance given to accountability in the 1970s?
    I. The rise in the inflation rate
    II. The growing importance of annual wage increases
    III. The balance of payments crisis
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    Statements I and II are mentioned in the second paragraph of the passage. Statement III is not mentioned anywhere in the entire passage. Option E is the right answer.

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    Which of the following could be the closest synonym of "forgone", as per the passage?
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    'Foregone' means go without (something desirable). The sentence wants to say, "..after accounting for fees and the income used while studying". Another word to substitute the 'used' from the above sentence, will be option D, having the same contextual meaning. 'Appreciated' = recognize the full worth of. 'Deduced' = arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion. 'Pr... more

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    Which of the following is true as per the passage?
    I. Richer countries have more graduates because there is less urgency to start earning.
    II. The current return on investment in higher education in America is constant.
    III. Policymakers feel that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility.
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    All the three statements are true. (I) is given in the 2nd to last sentence of the 3rd paragraph - "Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning." (II) is given in the 2nd to last sentence of the 4th paragraph - "Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared ... more

    Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
    In 1981,-Mirambika (Mira, from the name Mira Alfasa of the Mother,' the disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Ambika meaning "mother". In Sanskrit) was conceived, in an attempt to (A) the educational agenda of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. It started with 57 children and today, after two decades it has managed to hold the number at under 150.
    The atmosphere in the school is a proclamation of this ideology. The splendid architecture, its symmetry, openness, its harmony with nature are (B). There is no school uniform. More importantly, there are no fixed classes for the children of the same age. In fact there are no typical classes from nursery to Std. X but just 12 groups called Red, Blue, Equality, Aspiration and others. The idea is that children should not be treatedas objects of control in a hierarchical system of division and grading. There are no structured practices and the children engage in activities of their choice. Significantly though, this freedom does not degenerate into chaos. Instead, an alternative work culture has come to be where the children respect time and develop their own rhythm, without experiencing (C) from studies. Even very young children are seen to work on projects and bring out extensive material on the topic. Getting admission into Mirambika is not easy. The school is very clear that the ethos of the family and that of the school have to be similar. For, if parents do not fully comprehend the truemeaning of the alternative education, they are (D) to create obstacles in the experimental pursuits. Hence the aspiring parents are screened in two stages to make sure they are truly ready for the 'risk' inherent in the alternative format. Leaving the atmosphere of this 'dream' school, the big question that inevitably arises, is about how these children (E) adjust to the 'real' world. Parents and teachers concede that academically the children from Mirambika fare below their counterparts in the mainstream schools.
    The school is not affiliated to any board and the children take up the National Open School Exam.
    C
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    The school work culture is such that the children give respect to time and develop their own rhythm, skills without experiencing unfriendliness or alienation from studies.

    Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
    In 1981,-Mirambika (Mira, from the name Mira Alfasa of the Mother,' the disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Ambika meaning "mother". In Sanskrit) was conceived, in an attempt to (A) the educational agenda of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. It started with 57 children and today, after two decades it has managed to hold the number at under 150.
    The atmosphere in the school is a proclamation of this ideology. The splendid architecture, its symmetry, openness, its harmony with nature are (B). There is no school uniform. More importantly, there are no fixed classes for the children of the same age. In fact there are no typical classes from nursery to Std. X but just 12 groups called Red, Blue, Equality, Aspiration and others. The idea is that children should not be treatedas objects of control in a hierarchical system of division and grading. There are no structured practices and the children engage in activities of their choice. Significantly though, this freedom does not degenerate into chaos. Instead, an alternative work culture has come to be where the children respect time and develop their own rhythm, without experiencing (C) from studies. Even very young children are seen to work on projects and bring out extensive material on the topic. Getting admission into Mirambika is not easy. The school is very clear that the ethos of the family and that of the school have to be similar. For, if parents do not fully comprehend the truemeaning of the alternative education, they are (D) to create obstacles in the experimental pursuits. Hence the aspiring parents are screened in two stages to make sure they are truly ready for the 'risk' inherent in the alternative format. Leaving the atmosphere of this 'dream' school, the big question that inevitably arises, is about how these children (E) adjust to the 'real' world. Parents and teachers concede that academically the children from Mirambika fare below their counterparts in the mainstream schools.
    The school is not affiliated to any board and the children take up the National Open School Exam.
    B
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    The atmosphere of the school is described as its great architecture, its symmerty, openness, its harmony with nature. All the effects are great. Hence overwhelming, which means great, fits the blank.

    Directions: In each of these questions, four of the five sentences when arranged in order contribute to the main idea of a paragraph. Find the sentence which does not contribute to the main idea of the paragraph.
    (A) A couple of months ago, while vacationing in South Florida, I was lying on a beach when, all of a sudden, a single-engine Cessna came puttering across the sky, toting an aerial advertisement that read: "The real you is beautiful."
    (B) This anxiety has a long pedigree, first arising amid the revelations of the Enlightenment, when individuals were no longer beholden to the stiff hierarchies of feudalism but could tear away the garments of their socially determined roles in order to reveal their authentic selves.
    (C) I sat there for a moment blinking in the sun.
    (D) It was a message that seemed to fly in consummate symmetry with the insecurities of its audience: sunbathers with calf implants and spray tans and toupees.
    (E) Like all good advertisements, it managed to create an existential problem that its product would supposedly solve.
    ... more

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    A is the first line as it introduces the topic. B relates to A (lying down). D follows C as it refers to the message mentioned in A. E concludes appropriately. Hence, the correct order of sentences is: ACDE.
    B is the odd sentence as it goes on a different tangent.

    Directions: In the following questions a pair of sentences is given followed by three ways in which the two sentences could be combined. Select which of the given choice(s) is/are correct.
    I. The life expectancy rate of companies is shrinking rapidly world over.
    II. A list of Indian companies have been in existence for over 100 years and several of them are still going strong.
    A. The life expectancy rate ______________, hence a list of Indian companies _______________.
    B. Defying the fact that the life expectancy rate ________________, a list of Indian companies have ___________________.
    C. The life expectancy ______________, otherwise a list of Indian companies __________________.
    • a)
      Only A
    • b)
      Only B
    • c)
      Only A and B
    • d)
      Only B and C
    • e)
      All the three
    Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    A is not possible. Hence is used to introduce something that is a consequence of a previously mentioned fact, while the two sentences here introduce two contradicting facts. Options 1, 3 and 5 are eliminated.
    B is possible. Defying the fact that the life expectancy rate of companies is shrinking rapidly world over, a list of Indian companies have been in existence for over 100 years and several of them are still going very strong.
    C is not possible. Otherwise is used to mean or else, and is used to introduce two facts, which cannot exist simultaneously. Option 4 is eliminated. Option 2 is the right answer.

    Directions: In the following questions a pair of sentences is given followed by three ways in which the two sentences could be combined. Select which of the given choice(s) is/are correct.
    I. Rumour has it that Cyrus Mistry's performance and decisions as Tata Group chairman led to his ouster.
    II. He will be remembered for several difficult decisions - some tough and some forced - due to the legacy he inherited.
    A. Cyrus Mistry will be remembered for _________________, despite the fact that rumour has it that it was his performance and decisions ___________________.
    B. Though rumour has it that __________________________.
    C. Rumour has it that _______________, but he will be remembered ___________________.
    • a)
      Only A
    • b)
      Only B
    • c)
      Only C
    • d)
      Only A and B
    • e)
      All the three
    Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    A is possible, as the combined sentence would be: Cyrus Mistry will be remembered for several difficult decisions - some tough and some forced - due to the legacy he inherited, despite the fact that rumour has it that Cyrus Mistry's performance and decisions as Tata Group chairman led to his ouster. Options 2 and 3 are eliminated.
    B is possible. Though rumour has it that Cyrus Mistry's performance and decisions as Tata Group chairman led to his ouster, he will be remembered for several difficult decisions - some tough and some forced - due to the legacy he inherited. Option 1 is eliminated.
    C is possible. But is used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned. Rumour has it that Cyrus Mistry's performance and decisions as Tata Group chairman led to his ouster, but he will be remembered for several difficult decisions - some tough and some forced - due to the legacy he inherited. Option 4 is eliminated. Option 5 is the right answer.

    Directions: In the following questions a pair of sentences is given followed by three ways in which the two sentences could be combined. Select which of the given choice(s) is/are correct.
    I. 2016 taught us, among many other things, not to second-guess Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
    II. He has evolved from an incremental reformer to the one who could take revolutionary steps full of dangerous risks.
    A. 2016 taught us, among _______________, who has evolved from an _______________.
    B. 2016 taught us, among _______________, however, he has evolved _______________.
    C. 2016 taught us, among _______________, nevertheless, he has evolved ____________.
    • a)
      Only A
    • b)
      Only A and B
    • c)
      Only C
    • d)
      Only A and C
    • e)
      All the three
    Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    A is possible, as the combined sentence would be: 2016 taught us, among many other things, not to second-guess Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has evolved from an incremental reformer to the one who could take revolutionary steps full of dangerous risks. Option 2 is eliminated.
    B is not possible. However is used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously. Options 3 and 5 are eliminated
    C is not possible. Nevertheless is used to mean in spite of. Option 4 is eliminated. Option 1 is the right answer.

    Eight persons sit in a row. What is the probability that three particular persons always sit together?
    • a)
      1/28
    • b)
      3/28
    • c)
      5/28
    • d)
      1/4
    • e)
      None of these
    Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    Eight persons can be arranged in a row is 8! Ways.
    The number of ways that three particular persons always sit together = 6! * 3!
    Therefore the required probability
    = (6!*3!)/8! = 6/(7*8) = 3/28

    A coin is tossed six times. What is the probability that heads turn up at least two times?
    • a)
      59/64
    • b)
      57/64
    • c)
      55/64
    • d)
      53/64
    • e)
      None of these
    Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    The probability that heads turn up at least two times
    1 - {p(no head) + p(one head) }
    = 1 - (6C0 (1/2)6 (1/2)0 + 6C1 (1/2)1 (1/2)5)
    = 1 - (1/64 + 6/64)
    = 1 - 7/64 = (64-7)/64 = 57/64

    Find the missing term in the series below.
    1, 11, 21, 1112, 3112, 211213, ?
    • a)
      221331
    • b)
      311322
    • c)
      223113
    • d)
      133122
    • e)
      312213
    Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    1 - We have one 1 so 11
    11 - We have two 1s so 21
    21 - We have one 1 and one 2 so 1112
    1112 - We have three 1s and one 2 so 3112
    3112 - We have two 1s, one 2 and one 3 so 211213
    Now in 211213 we have three 1s, two 2s and one 3 so 312213

    Compare the following quantitative variables and answer accordingly.
    For -1 < x="" />< />
    A: (x + 5)(x − 5)
    B: x2 + 10x − 25
    • a)
      A = B
    • b)
      A > B
    • c)
      A ≤ B
    • d)
      A < />
    • e)
      Relationship between A and B cannot be determined
    Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?

    EduRev CAT answered  •  10 hours ago
    For A, (x+5)(x-5) = x2 -25
    For B, x2 - 25 + 10x, which means the value will be always greater than A for positive values of x. And for negative values of x, the value of B will be less than A.
    Mihiri Begum asked   •  9 hours ago

    Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
    The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights (A). Resolution then requires a determination as to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely (B) the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, the First Amendment protections of expression are (C). However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the Forum. This requires that consideration be given to a number of factors including: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of persons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straight forward.
    In the area of quasi-public property, (D) these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private owner permits the general public to use his property. When persons seek to use the land for passing out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression (E)? The precept that the private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new.
    What will come at a place of "E"
    ... more

    Urmila asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."
    In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
    So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.
    Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?
    The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.
    As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.
    In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.
    The word 'reluctant' as used in the passage, is opposite in meaning to:
    ... more

    Sunita Rani asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."
    In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
    So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.
    Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?
    The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.
    As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.
    In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.
    Which of the following statements about the Agile Manifesto is true?
    I. It reformed the existing system of performance appraisal.
    II. It was a new system aimed at assessing individual performance of employees.
    III. It took into consideration important factors such as self- motivation, and teamwork.
    IV. It gave importance to customer feedback, and taking decisions that were influenced by it.
    ... more

    Jagga Ram asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."
    In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
    So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.
    Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?
    The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.
    As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.
    In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.
    Which of the following was the reason why performance appraisal systems gradually lost their popularity?
    I. Small budgets for wage increase due to low inflation rates.
    II. The realisation that team based work conflicted with the main objective of individual appraisal systems.
    III. Mounting dissatisfaction with the appraisal system among employees.
    ... more

    Bir Singh asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."
    In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
    So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.
    Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?
    The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.
    As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.
    In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.
    According to the passage, which of the following changes came in 2005?
    I. The realization that it would be pointless to rate people on a scale.
    II. The growing importance of accountability and merit based pay systems.
    III. The system of annual wage increase for employees who performed well.
    ... more

    Sheela asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    Which of the following could be the closest antonym of "appealing", as used in the passage?
    ... more

    Ramji Lal Kataria asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    Which of the following correctly explains the meaning of the phrase "sought-after", as used in the passage?
    ... more

    Gurmeet Singh asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    As per the passage, which of the following becomes possible as a result of better-educated people?
    I. Boosting economic growth
    II. Enhancing social mobility
    III. Coming up with productivity-boosting innovations
    ... more

    Suresh Kumar asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    In which country/group of countries do least-educated workers earn little?
    ... more

    Manoj Kumar asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    Which of the following can be said of the richer countries, as per the passage?
    I. Richer countries have more money to spare.
    II. Rich economies have fewer easy ways to raise productivity.
    III. Education depresses the growth of richer nations.
    ... more

    Ram Narayan asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
    Over the course of a single generation in South Korea, degrees have become close to ubiquitous. Seventy per cent of pupils who graduate from the country's secondary schools now go straight to university, and a similar share of 25- to 34-year-olds hold degrees, up from 37% in 2000. Students scramble to gain admittance to the most prestigious institutions, with exam preparation starting ever younger. Sought-after private nurseries in Seoul have long waiting lists.
    South Korea is an extreme case. But other countries, too, have seen a big rise in the share of young people with degrees. In the OECD club of 35 countries, 43% of 25- to 34-year-olds now have degrees. In America the figure is 48%. Between 1995 and 2014 government spending on higher education in the OECD rose from 0.9% of GDP to 1.1%, while private spending rose from 1.2% to 1.5%. As government subsidies for tuition fees flow through to institutions they have helped inflate costs. Since 1990 fees for American students who do not get scholarships or bursaries have risen twice as fast as overall inflation.
    Policymakers regard it as obvious that sending more young people to university will boost economic growth and social mobility. Both notions are intuitively appealing. Better-educated people should surely be more likely to come up with productivity-boosting innovations. As technological change makes new demands of workers, it seems plausible that more will need to be well-educated. And a degree is an obvious way for bright youngsters from poor families to prove their abilities. But comparisons between countries provide little evidence of these links. Richer countries have more graduates, but that could be because there is more money to spare, and less urgency to start earning. Rich economies grow more slowly, but that is probably because they have fewer easy ways to raise productivity, not because education depresses their growth.
    The main piece of evidence cited by policymakers is the "graduate premium" - the difference between the average earnings of someone with a degree and someone with no more than a secondary-school education, after accounting for fees and the income forgone while studying. This gap is often expressed as the "return on investment" in higher education, or the annualised boost to lifetime earnings from gaining a degree. Research by the New York Federal Reserve shows that the return on investment in higher education soared between 1980 and 2000 in America, before levelling off at around 15% a year. In other words, an investment equal to the cost of tuition and earnings forgone while studying would have to earn 15% annual interest before it matched the average value over a working life of gaining a degree.
    The World Bank has produced estimates of this return for 139 economies. It varies from place to place but is substantial everywhere. The returns are linked to the share of people with degrees, and the range of earnings. Returns in Britain and Germany are similar to those in America. In sub-Saharan Africa, where degrees are scarce, and the least-educated workers earn little, they are around 21% a year. In Scandinavia, where wages are less unequal, and two-fifths of adults have degrees, they are around 9%.
    Which country/group of countries have less unequal wages and two-fifths of adults have degrees?
    ... more

    Dalbir Singh asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
    In 1981,-Mirambika (Mira, from the name Mira Alfasa of the Mother,' the disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Ambika meaning "mother". In Sanskrit) was conceived, in an attempt to (A) the educational agenda of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. It started with 57 children and today, after two decades it has managed to hold the number at under 150.
    The atmosphere in the school is a proclamation of this ideology. The splendid architecture, its symmetry, openness, its harmony with nature are (B). There is no school uniform. More importantly, there are no fixed classes for the children of the same age. In fact there are no typical classes from nursery to Std. X but just 12 groups called Red, Blue, Equality, Aspiration and others. The idea is that children should not be treatedas objects of control in a hierarchical system of division and grading. There are no structured practices and the children engage in activities of their choice. Significantly though, this freedom does not degenerate into chaos. Instead, an alternative work culture has come to be where the children respect time and develop their own rhythm, without experiencing (C) from studies. Even very young children are seen to work on projects and bring out extensive material on the topic. Getting admission into Mirambika is not easy. The school is very clear that the ethos of the family and that of the school have to be similar. For, if parents do not fully comprehend the truemeaning of the alternative education, they are (D) to create obstacles in the experimental pursuits. Hence the aspiring parents are screened in two stages to make sure they are truly ready for the 'risk' inherent in the alternative format. Leaving the atmosphere of this 'dream' school, the big question that inevitably arises, is about how these children (E) adjust to the 'real' world. Parents and teachers concede that academically the children from Mirambika fare below their counterparts in the mainstream schools.
    The school is not affiliated to any board and the children take up the National Open School Exam.
    E
    ... more

    Kaushlya asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
    In 1981,-Mirambika (Mira, from the name Mira Alfasa of the Mother,' the disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Ambika meaning "mother". In Sanskrit) was conceived, in an attempt to (A) the educational agenda of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. It started with 57 children and today, after two decades it has managed to hold the number at under 150.
    The atmosphere in the school is a proclamation of this ideology. The splendid architecture, its symmetry, openness, its harmony with nature are (B). There is no school uniform. More importantly, there are no fixed classes for the children of the same age. In fact there are no typical classes from nursery to Std. X but just 12 groups called Red, Blue, Equality, Aspiration and others. The idea is that children should not be treatedas objects of control in a hierarchical system of division and grading. There are no structured practices and the children engage in activities of their choice. Significantly though, this freedom does not degenerate into chaos. Instead, an alternative work culture has come to be where the children respect time and develop their own rhythm, without experiencing (C) from studies. Even very young children are seen to work on projects and bring out extensive material on the topic. Getting admission into Mirambika is not easy. The school is very clear that the ethos of the family and that of the school have to be similar. For, if parents do not fully comprehend the truemeaning of the alternative education, they are (D) to create obstacles in the experimental pursuits. Hence the aspiring parents are screened in two stages to make sure they are truly ready for the 'risk' inherent in the alternative format. Leaving the atmosphere of this 'dream' school, the big question that inevitably arises, is about how these children (E) adjust to the 'real' world. Parents and teachers concede that academically the children from Mirambika fare below their counterparts in the mainstream schools.
    The school is not affiliated to any board and the children take up the National Open School Exam.
    D
    ... more

    Ramo Devi asked   •  10 hours ago

    Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.
    In 1981,-Mirambika (Mira, from the name Mira Alfasa of the Mother,' the disciple of Sri Aurobindo, and Ambika meaning "mother". In Sanskrit) was conceived, in an attempt to (A) the educational agenda of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. It started with 57 children and today, after two decades it has managed to hold the number at under 150.
    The atmosphere in the school is a proclamation of this ideology. The splendid architecture, its symmetry, openness, its harmony with nature are (B). There is no school uniform. More importantly, there are no fixed classes for the children of the same age. In fact there are no typical classes from nursery to Std. X but just 12 groups called Red, Blue, Equality, Aspiration and others. The idea is that children should not be treatedas objects of control in a hierarchical system of division and grading. There are no structured practices and the children engage in activities of their choice. Significantly though, this freedom does not degenerate into chaos. Instead, an alternative work culture has come to be where the children respect time and develop their own rhythm, without experiencing (C) from studies. Even very young children are seen to work on projects and bring out extensive material on the topic. Getting admission into Mirambika is not easy. The school is very clear that the ethos of the family and that of the school have to be similar. For, if parents do not fully comprehend the truemeaning of the alternative education, they are (D) to create obstacles in the experimental pursuits. Hence the aspiring parents are screened in two stages to make sure they are truly ready for the 'risk' inherent in the alternative format. Leaving the atmosphere of this 'dream' school, the big question that inevitably arises, is about how these children (E) adjust to the 'real' world. Parents and teachers concede that academically the children from Mirambika fare below their counterparts in the mainstream schools.
    The school is not affiliated to any board and the children take up the National Open School Exam.
    A
    ... more

    Fetching relevant content for you