CAT Past Year Question Paper - 2000 | Additional Study Material for CAT PDF Download

 Page 1


Page 1
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
Directions for questions 1 to 40: Each of the five passages given below is followed by questions. Choose
the best answer for each question.
Passage – 1
The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative
roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in
agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with
pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round.
The current debate on TRIPs in India — as indeed elsewhere — echoes wider concerns about ‘privatization’
of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness
corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point
to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty
in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private
sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that
fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively
outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in
agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage
of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related
apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the
vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of
reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially-bred varieties are also another cause for
concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not

	



Instructions:
1. The Test Paper contains 165 questions. The duration of the test is 120 minutes.
2. The paper is divided into three sections. Section-I: 55 Q:, Section-II: 55 Q:, Section-III: 55 Q.
3. Wrong answers carry negative marks. There is only one correct answer for each question.
Page 2


Page 1
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
Directions for questions 1 to 40: Each of the five passages given below is followed by questions. Choose
the best answer for each question.
Passage – 1
The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative
roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in
agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with
pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round.
The current debate on TRIPs in India — as indeed elsewhere — echoes wider concerns about ‘privatization’
of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness
corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point
to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty
in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private
sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that
fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively
outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in
agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage
of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related
apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the
vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of
reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially-bred varieties are also another cause for
concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not

	



Instructions:
1. The Test Paper contains 165 questions. The duration of the test is 120 minutes.
2. The paper is divided into three sections. Section-I: 55 Q:, Section-II: 55 Q:, Section-III: 55 Q.
3. Wrong answers carry negative marks. There is only one correct answer for each question.
Page 2 CAT 2000 Actual Paper
ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest
themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive
sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of
potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties
happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against
such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research
was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by
private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market
for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially
strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost
market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research
for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability
is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As
such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field,
private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed
material, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource
management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and
forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing
institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research
institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work.
The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both
wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatization
of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do
not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic
and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organizations). Moreover,
as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of
local communities all over.
The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology.
But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free
of any charge. Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for
private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germ plasm
available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded
gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by
private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private
Page 3


Page 1
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
Directions for questions 1 to 40: Each of the five passages given below is followed by questions. Choose
the best answer for each question.
Passage – 1
The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative
roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in
agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with
pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round.
The current debate on TRIPs in India — as indeed elsewhere — echoes wider concerns about ‘privatization’
of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness
corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point
to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty
in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private
sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that
fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively
outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in
agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage
of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related
apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the
vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of
reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially-bred varieties are also another cause for
concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not

	



Instructions:
1. The Test Paper contains 165 questions. The duration of the test is 120 minutes.
2. The paper is divided into three sections. Section-I: 55 Q:, Section-II: 55 Q:, Section-III: 55 Q.
3. Wrong answers carry negative marks. There is only one correct answer for each question.
Page 2 CAT 2000 Actual Paper
ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest
themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive
sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of
potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties
happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against
such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research
was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by
private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market
for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially
strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost
market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research
for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability
is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As
such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field,
private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed
material, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource
management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and
forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing
institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research
institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work.
The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both
wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatization
of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do
not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic
and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organizations). Moreover,
as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of
local communities all over.
The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology.
But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free
of any charge. Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for
private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germ plasm
available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded
gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by
private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private
Page 3
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge
and germ plasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded institutions? Or should
users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should
the compensation be for individuals or for communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individuals/
institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that
deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory,
fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong.
The public space is much wider than government departments and includes cooperatives, universities,
public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research
organizations from government control and giving non-government public institutions the space and resources
to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the
public research system.
1. Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being
raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
a. The role of MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
b. The strategy and policies for establishing an IPR regime for Indian agriculture.
c. The relative roles of public and private sectors.
d. Wider concerns about ‘privatization’ of research.
2. The fundamental breakthrough in deciphering the structure and functioning of DNA has become a
public good. This means that
a. breakthroughs in fundamental research on DNA are accessible by all without any monetary
considerations.
b. the fundamental research on DNA has the characteristic of having beneficial effects for the public
at large.
c. due to the large scale of fundamental research on DNA, it falls in the domain of public sector
research institutions.
d. the public and other companies must have free access to such fundamental breakthroughs in
research.
3. In debating the respective roles of the public and private sectors in the national research system, it
is important to recognise
a. that private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely on their own research.
b. that almost all technology improvements are based on knowledge and experience accumulated
from the past.
c. the complementary role of public and private-sector research.
d. that knowledge repositories are primarily the scientific community and its academic publications.
4. Which one of the following may provide incentives to address the problem of potential adverse
consequences of biotechnology?
a. Include IPR issues in the TRIPs agreement.
b. Nationalize MNCs engaged in private research in biotechnology.
c. Encourage domestic firms to patent their innovations.
d. Make provisions in the law for user compensation against failure of newly-developed varieties.
Page 4


Page 1
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
Directions for questions 1 to 40: Each of the five passages given below is followed by questions. Choose
the best answer for each question.
Passage – 1
The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative
roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in
agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with
pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round.
The current debate on TRIPs in India — as indeed elsewhere — echoes wider concerns about ‘privatization’
of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness
corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point
to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty
in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private
sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that
fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively
outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in
agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage
of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related
apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the
vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of
reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially-bred varieties are also another cause for
concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not

	



Instructions:
1. The Test Paper contains 165 questions. The duration of the test is 120 minutes.
2. The paper is divided into three sections. Section-I: 55 Q:, Section-II: 55 Q:, Section-III: 55 Q.
3. Wrong answers carry negative marks. There is only one correct answer for each question.
Page 2 CAT 2000 Actual Paper
ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest
themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive
sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of
potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties
happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against
such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research
was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by
private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market
for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially
strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost
market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research
for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability
is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As
such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field,
private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed
material, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource
management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and
forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing
institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research
institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work.
The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both
wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatization
of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do
not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic
and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organizations). Moreover,
as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of
local communities all over.
The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology.
But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free
of any charge. Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for
private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germ plasm
available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded
gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by
private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private
Page 3
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge
and germ plasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded institutions? Or should
users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should
the compensation be for individuals or for communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individuals/
institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that
deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory,
fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong.
The public space is much wider than government departments and includes cooperatives, universities,
public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research
organizations from government control and giving non-government public institutions the space and resources
to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the
public research system.
1. Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being
raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
a. The role of MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
b. The strategy and policies for establishing an IPR regime for Indian agriculture.
c. The relative roles of public and private sectors.
d. Wider concerns about ‘privatization’ of research.
2. The fundamental breakthrough in deciphering the structure and functioning of DNA has become a
public good. This means that
a. breakthroughs in fundamental research on DNA are accessible by all without any monetary
considerations.
b. the fundamental research on DNA has the characteristic of having beneficial effects for the public
at large.
c. due to the large scale of fundamental research on DNA, it falls in the domain of public sector
research institutions.
d. the public and other companies must have free access to such fundamental breakthroughs in
research.
3. In debating the respective roles of the public and private sectors in the national research system, it
is important to recognise
a. that private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely on their own research.
b. that almost all technology improvements are based on knowledge and experience accumulated
from the past.
c. the complementary role of public and private-sector research.
d. that knowledge repositories are primarily the scientific community and its academic publications.
4. Which one of the following may provide incentives to address the problem of potential adverse
consequences of biotechnology?
a. Include IPR issues in the TRIPs agreement.
b. Nationalize MNCs engaged in private research in biotechnology.
c. Encourage domestic firms to patent their innovations.
d. Make provisions in the law for user compensation against failure of newly-developed varieties.
Page 4 CAT 2000 Actual Paper
5. Which of the following statements is not a likely consequence of emerging technologies in agriculture?
a. Development of newer and newer varieties will lead to increase in biodiversity.
b. MNCs may underplay the negative consequences of the newer technology on environment.
c. Newer varieties of seeds may increase vulnerability of crops to pests and diseases.
d. Reforms in patent laws and user compensation against crop failures would be needed to address
new technology problems.
6. The TRIPs agreement emerged from the Uruguay Round to
a. address the problem of adverse consequences of genetically engineered new varieties of grain.
b. fulfil the WTO requirement to have an agreement on trade related property rights.
c. provide incentives to innovators by way of protecting their intellectual property.
d. give credibility to the innovations made by MNCs in the field of pharmaceuticals and agriculture.
7. Public or quasi-public research institutions are more likely than private companies to address the
negative consequences of new technologies, because of which of the following reasons?
a. Public research is not driven by profit motive.
b. Private companies may not be able to absorb losses arising out of the negative effects of the new
technologies.
c. Unlike new technology products, knowledge and techniques for resource management are not
amenable to simple market transactions.
d. All of the above
8. While developing a strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research
system, which one of the following statements needs to be considered?
a. Public and quasi-public institutions are not interested in making profits.
b. Public and quasi-public institutions have a broader and long-term outlook than private companies.
c. Private companies are incapable of building products based on traditional and folk knowledge.
d. Traditional and folk knowledge cannot be protected by patents.
Passage – 2
One of the criteria by which we judge the vitality of a style of painting is its ability to renew itself — its
responsiveness to the changing nature and quality of experience, the degree of conceptual and formal
innovation that it exhibits. By this criterion, it would appear that the practice of abstractionism has failed to
engage creatively with the radical change in human experience in recent decades. It has, seemingly, been
unwilling to re-invent itself in relation to the systems of artistic expression and viewers’ expectations that
have developed under the impact of the mass media.
The judgement that abstractionism has slipped into ‘inter gear’ is gaining endorsement, not only among
discerning viewers and practitioners of other art forms, but also among abstract painters themselves. Like
their companions elsewhere in the world, abstractionists in India are asking themselves an overwhelming
question today: Does abstractionism have a future? The major crisis that abstractionists face is that of
revitalising their picture surface; few have improvised any solutions beyond the ones that were exhausted
by the 1970s. Like all revolutions, whether in policies or in art, abstractionism must now confront its
moment of truth: having begun life as a new and radical pictorial approach to experience, it has become an
entrenched orthodoxy itself. Indeed, when viewed against a historical situation in which a variety of subversive,
Page 5


Page 1
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
Directions for questions 1 to 40: Each of the five passages given below is followed by questions. Choose
the best answer for each question.
Passage – 1
The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning
the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative
roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This
debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in
agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with
pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls
for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their
innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong
support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which
eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round.
The current debate on TRIPs in India — as indeed elsewhere — echoes wider concerns about ‘privatization’
of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness
corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point
to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty
in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private
sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that
fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively
outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in
agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage
of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related
apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the
vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of
reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially-bred varieties are also another cause for
concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not

	



Instructions:
1. The Test Paper contains 165 questions. The duration of the test is 120 minutes.
2. The paper is divided into three sections. Section-I: 55 Q:, Section-II: 55 Q:, Section-III: 55 Q.
3. Wrong answers carry negative marks. There is only one correct answer for each question.
Page 2 CAT 2000 Actual Paper
ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest
themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive
sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of
potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties
happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against
such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in
reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not
sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties
(HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of
grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research
was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by
private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market
for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially
strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost
market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research
for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability
is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As
such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field,
private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed
material, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource
management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and
forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing
institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research
institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work.
The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both
wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatization
of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector
complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between
various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do
not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological
improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic
and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organizations). Moreover,
as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific
community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of
local communities all over.
The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology.
But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free
of any charge. Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for
private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germ plasm
available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded
gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by
private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private
Page 3
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge
and germ plasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded institutions? Or should
users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should
the compensation be for individuals or for communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individuals/
institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that
deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory,
fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong.
The public space is much wider than government departments and includes cooperatives, universities,
public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research
organizations from government control and giving non-government public institutions the space and resources
to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the
public research system.
1. Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being
raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
a. The role of MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.
b. The strategy and policies for establishing an IPR regime for Indian agriculture.
c. The relative roles of public and private sectors.
d. Wider concerns about ‘privatization’ of research.
2. The fundamental breakthrough in deciphering the structure and functioning of DNA has become a
public good. This means that
a. breakthroughs in fundamental research on DNA are accessible by all without any monetary
considerations.
b. the fundamental research on DNA has the characteristic of having beneficial effects for the public
at large.
c. due to the large scale of fundamental research on DNA, it falls in the domain of public sector
research institutions.
d. the public and other companies must have free access to such fundamental breakthroughs in
research.
3. In debating the respective roles of the public and private sectors in the national research system, it
is important to recognise
a. that private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely on their own research.
b. that almost all technology improvements are based on knowledge and experience accumulated
from the past.
c. the complementary role of public and private-sector research.
d. that knowledge repositories are primarily the scientific community and its academic publications.
4. Which one of the following may provide incentives to address the problem of potential adverse
consequences of biotechnology?
a. Include IPR issues in the TRIPs agreement.
b. Nationalize MNCs engaged in private research in biotechnology.
c. Encourage domestic firms to patent their innovations.
d. Make provisions in the law for user compensation against failure of newly-developed varieties.
Page 4 CAT 2000 Actual Paper
5. Which of the following statements is not a likely consequence of emerging technologies in agriculture?
a. Development of newer and newer varieties will lead to increase in biodiversity.
b. MNCs may underplay the negative consequences of the newer technology on environment.
c. Newer varieties of seeds may increase vulnerability of crops to pests and diseases.
d. Reforms in patent laws and user compensation against crop failures would be needed to address
new technology problems.
6. The TRIPs agreement emerged from the Uruguay Round to
a. address the problem of adverse consequences of genetically engineered new varieties of grain.
b. fulfil the WTO requirement to have an agreement on trade related property rights.
c. provide incentives to innovators by way of protecting their intellectual property.
d. give credibility to the innovations made by MNCs in the field of pharmaceuticals and agriculture.
7. Public or quasi-public research institutions are more likely than private companies to address the
negative consequences of new technologies, because of which of the following reasons?
a. Public research is not driven by profit motive.
b. Private companies may not be able to absorb losses arising out of the negative effects of the new
technologies.
c. Unlike new technology products, knowledge and techniques for resource management are not
amenable to simple market transactions.
d. All of the above
8. While developing a strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research
system, which one of the following statements needs to be considered?
a. Public and quasi-public institutions are not interested in making profits.
b. Public and quasi-public institutions have a broader and long-term outlook than private companies.
c. Private companies are incapable of building products based on traditional and folk knowledge.
d. Traditional and folk knowledge cannot be protected by patents.
Passage – 2
One of the criteria by which we judge the vitality of a style of painting is its ability to renew itself — its
responsiveness to the changing nature and quality of experience, the degree of conceptual and formal
innovation that it exhibits. By this criterion, it would appear that the practice of abstractionism has failed to
engage creatively with the radical change in human experience in recent decades. It has, seemingly, been
unwilling to re-invent itself in relation to the systems of artistic expression and viewers’ expectations that
have developed under the impact of the mass media.
The judgement that abstractionism has slipped into ‘inter gear’ is gaining endorsement, not only among
discerning viewers and practitioners of other art forms, but also among abstract painters themselves. Like
their companions elsewhere in the world, abstractionists in India are asking themselves an overwhelming
question today: Does abstractionism have a future? The major crisis that abstractionists face is that of
revitalising their picture surface; few have improvised any solutions beyond the ones that were exhausted
by the 1970s. Like all revolutions, whether in policies or in art, abstractionism must now confront its
moment of truth: having begun life as a new and radical pictorial approach to experience, it has become an
entrenched orthodoxy itself. Indeed, when viewed against a historical situation in which a variety of subversive,
Page 5
CAT 2000 Actual Paper
interactive and richly hybrid forms are available to the art practitioner, abstractionism assumes the remote
and defiant air of an aristocracy that has outlived its age; trammelled by formulaic conventions yet buttressed
by a rhetoric of sacred mystery, it seems condemned to being the last citadel of the self-regarding ‘fine art’
tradition, the last hurrah of painting for painting’s sake.
The situation is further complicated in India by the circumstances in which an indigenous abstractionism
came into prominence here during the 1960s. From the beginning it was propelled by the dialectic between
two motives, one revolutionary and the other conservative — it was inaugurated as an act of emancipation
from the dogmas of the nascent Indian nation state, when art was officially viewed as an indulgence at
worst, and at best, as an instrument for the celebration of the republic’s hopes and aspirations. Having
rejected these dogmas, the pioneering abstractionists also went on to reject the various figurative styles
associated with the Santiniketan circle and others. In such a situation, abstractionism was a revolutionary
move. It led art towards the exploration of the subconscious mind, the spiritual quest and the possible
expansion of consciousness. Indian painting entered into a phase of self-inquiry, a meditative inner space
where cosmic symbols and non-representational images ruled. Often, the transition from figurative idioms
to abstractionist ones took place within the same artist.
At the same time, Indian abstractionists have rarely committed themselves wholeheartedly to a non-
representational idiom. They have been preoccupied with the fundamentally metaphysical project of aspiring
to the mystical-holy without altogether renouncing the symbolic. This has been sustained by a hereditary
reluctance to give up the murti, the inviolable iconic form, which explains why abstractionism is marked by
the conservative tendency to operate with images from the sacred repertoire of the past. Abstractionism
thus entered India as a double-edged device in a complex cultural transaction. Ideologically, it served as an
internationalist legitimisation of the emerging revolutionary local trends. However, on entry, it was conscripted
to serve local artistic preoccupations — a survey of indigenous abstractionism will show that its most
obvious points of affinity with European and American abstract art were with the more mystically oriented
of the major sources of abstractionist philosophy and practice, for instance, the Kandinsky-Klee School.
There have been no takers for Malevich’s Suprematism, which militantly rejected both the artistic forms of
the past and the world of appearances, privileging the new-minted geometric symbol as an autonomous
sign of the desire for infinity.
Against this backdrop, we can identify three major abstractionist idioms in Indian art. The first develops
from a love of the earth, and assumes the form of a celebration of the self’s dissolution in the cosmic
panorama; the landscape is no longer a realistic transcription of the scene, but is transformed into a
visionary occasion for contemplating the cycles of decay and regeneration. The second idiom phrases its
departures from symbolic and archetypal devices as invitations to heightened planes of awareness.
Abstractionism begins with the establishment or dissolution of the motif, which can be drawn from diverse
sources, including the hieroglyphic tablet, the Sufi meditation dance or the T antric diagram. The third idiom
is based on the lyric play of forms guided by gesture or allied with formal improvisations like the assemblage.
Here, sometimes, the line dividing abstract image from patterned design or quasi-random expressive
marking may blur. The flux of forms can also be regimented through  the policies of pure colour arrangements,
vector-diagrammatic spaces and gestural design.
In this genealogy, some pure lines of descent follow their logic to the inevitable point of extinction, others
engage in cross-fertilization, and yet others undergo mutation to maintain their energy. However, this
genealogical survey demonstrates the wave at its crests, those points where the metaphysical and the
painterly have been fused in images of abiding potency, ideas sensuously ordained rather than fabricated