Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect 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 Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.a)Only Ib)Only IIIc)Both I & IId)Both II & IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.