All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Banking Exams Exam  >  Banking Exams Questions  >   As compared to which of the following countr... Start Learning for Free
As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?
  • a)
    China
  • b)
    Bangladesh
  • c)
    Indonesia
  • d)
    Pakistan
  • e)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Banking Exams doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
As compared to which of the following countries does India have a low...
Comparison of Population Density: India and Bangladesh

Introduction:
Population density is a measure of the number of people per unit area. It is calculated by dividing the total population of a country by its land area. In this question, we are comparing the population density of India with that of several other countries.

Comparison:
Among the given options, Bangladesh has a lower population density than India. Let's explore this further:

Population:
- India: As of 2021, India has a population of approximately 1.3 billion people, making it the second most populous country in the world.
- Bangladesh: On the other hand, Bangladesh has a population of around 165 million people, making it the eighth most populous country in the world.

Land Area:
- India: India has a land area of about 3.29 million square kilometers, making it the seventh largest country in the world by land area.
- Bangladesh: In contrast, Bangladesh has a much smaller land area of about 147,570 square kilometers, making it one of the smaller countries in the world.

Calculating Population Density:
To calculate the population density, we divide the population of a country by its land area:

- India: Population density of India = Population of India / Land area of India = 1.3 billion / 3.29 million square kilometers ≈ 393 people per square kilometer.
- Bangladesh: Population density of Bangladesh = Population of Bangladesh / Land area of Bangladesh = 165 million / 147,570 square kilometers ≈ 1,118 people per square kilometer.

Conclusion:
Comparing the population densities, we can see that Bangladesh has a higher population density than India. While India has a population density of approximately 393 people per square kilometer, Bangladesh has a higher population density of around 1,118 people per square kilometer. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'B' - Bangladesh.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
As compared to which of the following countries does India have a low...
The correct answer is Bangladesh.
Explore Courses for Banking Exams exam

Similar Banking Exams Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) mega project has been widely welcomed in Pakistan as a game changer. The core of the project is a 2,500-km road and rail link, which will connect the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea to the Chinese city of Kashgar in Central Asia. The Chinese government, the principal sponsor, says it will invest $46 billion on the project.The money will be spent not just on the road and rail link but also on a host of other infrastructure projects. These include an expansion of Gwadar port and a new international airport in the city. Also included are several power projects based on coal and renewable energy that will add about 10.4GW to Pakistan's power grid. Oil and gas pipelines are in the offing as well.There can be no dispute that the CPEC is a game changer. Pakistan's faltering economy will get a huge boost. China will get access to a warm water port. Shipping time and cost for exports from Western China will be reduced. Oil and gas will be offloaded at Gwadar and piped along the corridor to China.The announcement of the project shone a bright light in the gloom that surrounds the Pakistani economy. Elation is the order of the day. There is broad consensus that CPEC is an unqualified “good.” But could it be that, dazzled by the light, we have neglected to conduct a rigorous analysis of this mega project and what it means to Pakistan?In a deal like this emotions have to be set aside. There is no doubt that China has been a strong and constant supporter of Pakistan throughout our history. But it should also be clear that when it makes investment decisions such as the proposed $46 billion CPEC it makes them in the cold light of its self-interest — as one would expect from any responsible nation. And as a responsible nation, conscious of its sovereignty and self-respect, Pakistan should also apply the same standard to its assessment of the project.Clearly the advantages of the CPEC are many, significant, and undeniable. But are there any aspects that may be detrimental to our interests in the long term? The first issue that comes to mind is sovereignty.By leasing out vast tracts of land in the city of Gwadar and all along the route of the corridor, we in fact transfer sovereignty of some of our territory to a foreign power. And this is no ordinary foreign power. China is an emerging superpower with global ambitions. Have we built into the deal the necessary safeguards that will allow us to retain control of our territory if circumstances change?It is proposed that most of the construction work will be done by thousands of Chinese workers. Does this make sense for Pakistan given widespread and painful unemployment? Would it not be in our interest to have Pakistanis do the work? Should contracts not include provisions for contractors to train and employ Pakistani workers and engineers?As a global manufacturing powerhouse China plans to bring all or most of the equipment it needs for projects from its own suppliers. But would not our interest be better served if we insisted on having equipment made in Pakistan? Part of the proposed investment should be diverted to setting up factories inside Pakistan to supply the diverse range of equipment and machinery to the various CPEC projects.Have we asked the right questions in regard to the financing? Forty-six billion dollars is a lot of money. Is it a grant or gift to Pakistan? Is it a loan? If the latter, what is the payback period and the applicable rate? What happens if there is a default? Have the tariff rates payable to Pakistan for use of port facilities, road and rail links, and oil and gas pipelines been established and agreed?These and a whole range of other issues must be addressed when so much is at stake. But it seems that the euphoria of attracting this mega project has perhaps distracted us from the imperative of due diligence and the rigorous risk-based cost benefit analysis that this entails.Let there be no doubt: The CPEC is wonderful news for Pakistan. But it must move forward with its eyes wide open. And with a full understanding of not only the rewards that the project holds for Pakistan, but also the possible pitfalls that may lie in wait for us."Elation is the order of the day.Q. Which of the following best elaborates the given statement?

" Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) mega project has been widely welcomed in Pakistan as a game changer. The core of the project is a 2,500-km road and rail link, which will connect the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea to the Chinese city of Kashgar in Central Asia. The Chinese government, the principal sponsor, says it will invest $46 billion on the project.The money will be spent not just on the road and rail link but also on a host of other infrastructure projects. These include an expansion of Gwadar port and a new international airport in the city. Also included are several power projects based on coal and renewable energy that will add about 10.4GW to Pakistan's power grid. Oil and gas pipelines are in the offing as well.There can be no dispute that the CPEC is a game changer. Pakistan's faltering economy will get a huge boost. China will get access to a warm water port. Shipping time and cost for exports from Western China will be reduced. Oil and gas will be offloaded at Gwadar and piped along the corridor to China.The announcement of the project shone a bright light in the gloom that surrounds the Pakistani economy. Elation is the order of the day. There is broad consensus that CPEC is an unqualified “good.” But could it be that, dazzled by the light, we have neglected to conduct a rigorous analysis of this mega project and what it means to Pakistan?In a deal like this emotions have to be set aside. There is no doubt that China has been a strong and constant supporter of Pakistan throughout our history. But it should also be clear that when it makes investment decisions such as the proposed $46 billion CPEC it makes them in the cold light of its self-interest — as one would expect from any responsible nation. And as a responsible nation, conscious of its sovereignty and self-respect, Pakistan should also apply the same standard to its assessment of the project.Clearly the advantages of the CPEC are many, significant, and undeniable. But are there any aspects that may be detrimental to our interests in the long term? The first issue that comes to mind is sovereignty.By leasing out vast tracts of land in the city of Gwadar and all along the route of the corridor, we in fact transfer sovereignty of some of our territory to a foreign power. And this is no ordinary foreign power. China is an emerging superpower with global ambitions. Have we built into the deal the necessary safeguards that will allow us to retain control of our territory if circumstances change?It is proposed that most of the construction work will be done by thousands of Chinese workers. Does this make sense for Pakistan given widespread and painful unemployment? Would it not be in our interest to have Pakistanis do the work? Should contracts not include provisions for contractors to train and employ Pakistani workers and engineers?As a global manufacturing powerhouse China plans to bring all or most of the equipment it needs for projects from its own suppliers. But would not our interest be better served if we insisted on having equipment made in Pakistan? Part of the proposed investment should be diverted to setting up factories inside Pakistan to supply the diverse range of equipment and machinery to the various CPEC projects.Have we asked the right questions in regard to the financing? Forty-six billion dollars is a lot of money. Is it a grant or gift to Pakistan? Is it a loan? If the latter, what is the payback period and the applicable rate? What happens if there is a default? Have the tariff rates payable to Pakistan for use of port facilities, road and rail links, and oil and gas pipelines been established and agreed?These and a whole range of other issues must be addressed when so much is at stake. But it seems that the euphoria of attracting this mega project has perhaps distracted us from the imperative of due diligence and the rigorous risk-based cost benefit analysis that this entails.Let there be no doubt: The CPEC is wonderful news for Pakistan. But it must move forward with its eyes wide open. And with a full understanding of not only the rewards that the project holds for Pakistan, but also the possible pitfalls that may lie in wait for us."Elation is the order of the day.Q. According to the passage, which of the following is TRUE?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) mega project has been widely welcomed in Pakistan as a game changer. The core of the project is a 2,500-km road and rail link, which will connect the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea to the Chinese city of Kashgar in Central Asia. The Chinese government, the principal sponsor, says it will invest $46 billion on the project.The money will be spent not just on the road and rail link but also on a host of other infrastructure projects. These include an expansion of Gwadar port and a new international airport in the city. Also included are several power projects based on coal and renewable energy that will add about 10.4GW to Pakistan's power grid. Oil and gas pipelines are in the offing as well.There can be no dispute that the CPEC is a game changer. Pakistan's faltering economy will get a huge boost. China will get access to a warm water port. Shipping time and cost for exports from Western China will be reduced. Oil and gas will be offloaded at Gwadar and piped along the corridor to China.The announcement of the project shone a bright light in the gloom that surrounds the Pakistani economy. Elation is the order of the day. There is broad consensus that CPEC is an unqualified “good.” But could it be that, dazzled by the light, we have neglected to conduct a rigorous analysis of this mega project and what it means to Pakistan?In a deal like this emotions have to be set aside. There is no doubt that China has been a strong and constant supporter of Pakistan throughout our history. But it should also be clear that when it makes investment decisions such as the proposed $46 billion CPEC it makes them in the cold light of its self-interest — as one would expect from any responsible nation. And as a responsible nation, conscious of its sovereignty and self-respect, Pakistan should also apply the same standard to its assessment of the project.Clearly the advantages of the CPEC are many, significant, and undeniable. But are there any aspects that may be detrimental to our interests in the long term? The first issue that comes to mind is sovereignty.By leasing out vast tracts of land in the city of Gwadar and all along the route of the corridor, we in fact transfer sovereignty of some of our territory to a foreign power. And this is no ordinary foreign power. China is an emerging superpower with global ambitions. Have we built into the deal the necessary safeguards that will allow us to retain control of our territory if circumstances change?It is proposed that most of the construction work will be done by thousands of Chinese workers. Does this make sense for Pakistan given widespread and painful unemployment? Would it not be in our interest to have Pakistanis do the work? Should contracts not include provisions for contractors to train and employ Pakistani workers and engineers?As a global manufacturing powerhouse China plans to bring all or most of the equipment it needs for projects from its own suppliers. But would not our interest be better served if we insisted on having equipment made in Pakistan? Part of the proposed investment should be diverted to setting up factories inside Pakistan to supply the diverse range of equipment and machinery to the various CPEC projects.Have we asked the right questions in regard to the financing? Forty-six billion dollars is a lot of money. Is it a grant or gift to Pakistan? Is it a loan? If the latter, what is the payback period and the applicable rate? What happens if there is a default? Have the tariff rates payable to Pakistan for use of port facilities, road and rail links, and oil and gas pipelines been established and agreed?These and a whole range of other issues must be addressed when so much is at stake. But it seems that the euphoria of attracting this mega project has perhaps distracted us from the imperative of due diligence and the rigorous risk-based cost benefit analysis that this entails.Let there be no doubt: The CPEC is wonderful news for Pakistan. But it must move forward with its eyes wide open. And with a full understanding of not only the rewards that the project holds for Pakistan, but also the possible pitfalls that may lie in wait for us."Elation is the order of the day.Q. Which of the following brings to light China's self-serving priority?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) mega project has been widely welcomed in Pakistan as a game changer. The core of the project is a 2,500-km road and rail link, which will connect the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea to the Chinese city of Kashgar in Central Asia. The Chinese government, the principal sponsor, says it will invest $46 billion on the project.The money will be spent not just on the road and rail link but also on a host of other infrastructure projects. These include an expansion of Gwadar port and a new international airport in the city. Also included are several power projects based on coal and renewable energy that will add about 10.4GW to Pakistan's power grid. Oil and gas pipelines are in the offing as well.There can be no dispute that the CPEC is a game changer. Pakistan's faltering economy will get a huge boost. China will get access to a warm water port. Shipping time and cost for exports from Western China will be reduced. Oil and gas will be offloaded at Gwadar and piped along the corridor to China.The announcement of the project shone a bright light in the gloom that surrounds the Pakistani economy. Elation is the order of the day. There is broad consensus that CPEC is an unqualified “good.” But could it be that, dazzled by the light, we have neglected to conduct a rigorous analysis of this mega project and what it means to Pakistan?In a deal like this emotions have to be set aside. There is no doubt that China has been a strong and constant supporter of Pakistan throughout our history. But it should also be clear that when it makes investment decisions such as the proposed $46 billion CPEC it makes them in the cold light of its self-interest — as one would expect from any responsible nation. And as a responsible nation, conscious of its sovereignty and self-respect, Pakistan should also apply the same standard to its assessment of the project.Clearly the advantages of the CPEC are many, significant, and undeniable. But are there any aspects that may be detrimental to our interests in the long term? The first issue that comes to mind is sovereignty.By leasing out vast tracts of land in the city of Gwadar and all along the route of the corridor, we in fact transfer sovereignty of some of our territory to a foreign power. And this is no ordinary foreign power. China is an emerging superpower with global ambitions. Have we built into the deal the necessary safeguards that will allow us to retain control of our territory if circumstances change?It is proposed that most of the construction work will be done by thousands of Chinese workers. Does this make sense for Pakistan given widespread and painful unemployment? Would it not be in our interest to have Pakistanis do the work? Should contracts not include provisions for contractors to train and employ Pakistani workers and engineers?As a global manufacturing powerhouse China plans to bring all or most of the equipment it needs for projects from its own suppliers. But would not our interest be better served if we insisted on having equipment made in Pakistan? Part of the proposed investment should be diverted to setting up factories inside Pakistan to supply the diverse range of equipment and machinery to the various CPEC projects.Have we asked the right questions in regard to the financing? Forty-six billion dollars is a lot of money. Is it a grant or gift to Pakistan? Is it a loan? If the latter, what is the payback period and the applicable rate? What happens if there is a default? Have the tariff rates payable to Pakistan for use of port facilities, road and rail links, and oil and gas pipelines been established and agreed?These and a whole range of other issues must be addressed when so much is at stake. But it seems that the euphoria of attracting this mega project has perhaps distracted us from the imperative of due diligence and the rigorous risk-based cost benefit analysis that this entails.Let there be no doubt: The CPEC is wonderful news for Pakistan. But it must move forward with its eyes wide open. And with a full understanding of not only the rewards that the project holds for Pakistan, but also the possible pitfalls that may lie in wait for us."Elation is the order of the day.Q. Which of the following, that can be inferred from the passage, highlights China's vested interests?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underlineto help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade, I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to haveextensivecorruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria-like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Anothermythis that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil ex-pressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa: "We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had beensquandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have anobligationto feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfil its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid. administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically up to 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course. because not one in a million U.S. citizens even know of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.Q. The author has given the example of Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan in support of his argument that

Top Courses for Banking ExamsView all

Top Courses for Banking Exams

As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Banking Exams 2025 is part of Banking Exams preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Banking Exams exam syllabus. Information about As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Banking Exams 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Banking Exams. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Banking Exams Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice As compared to which of the following countries does India have a lower population density?a)Chinab)Bangladeshc)Indonesiad)Pakistane)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Banking Exams tests.
Explore Courses for Banking Exams exam

Top Courses for Banking Exams

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup