Question Description
Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more productive pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on unproductive pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isnt it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.Q. What is the authors tone in the above passage?a)Mockingb)Intensec)Forthrightd)Indignante)CynicalCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.