Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBIandrsquo;s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of Englandandrsquo;s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: andldquo;You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldnandrsquo;t be used for sweets.andrdquo;There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, andldquo;programmable digital currencyandrdquo; is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizensandrsquo; communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, andquot;You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldnandrsquo;t be used for sweets.andquot;a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction: Read the following passage careful...

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:

In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e₹-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e₹-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”

There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.

Q. In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffe's statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."

a)
It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.
b)
Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.
c)
Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.
d)
Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questio...

Sir Jon Cunliffe's statement suggests the potential for configuring digital currency to enforce limitations on its usage, exemplified by its inability to be employed for purchasing sweets in the given scenario. This implies the feasibility of implementing programmable constraints on digital currency transactions.

Options A, B, and D are not directly drawn from Sir Jon Cunliffe's statement within the passage:

The statement primarily addresses the programming aspect of digital currency, rather than delving into individual autonomy in spending money.
Although the statement involves giving pocket money to children, it doesn't explicitly emphasize the educational value or decision-making aspects in that context.
The core focus of Sir Jon Cunliffe's statement is not centered around building trust and open communication with children regarding money management; instead, it concentrates on the programmability of digital currency.

Hence, the sole option that can be directly inferred from the statement is C.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.Based on the information provided in the passage, which of the following statements can be inferred?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.According to the passage, what is a plausible motive for the sovereign government to introduce CBDCs?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.According to Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Deputy Governor for Financial Stability at the Bank of England, what is one possibility related to a digital currency in the United Kingdom?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.What is the main concern raised in the passage regarding Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)?

View answer

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.The humanities transmit, through time and across cultures, diverse expressions of the human condition, allowing us to contextualize, illuminate, and pass on an essential legacy of culture, history and heritage.I believe that social media poses a grave threat to the humanities because it lacks the depth, nuance and permanence that make genuine, meaningful interactions about the human condition possible.Everything that social media communication represents- immediacy, impermanence, collectivism- is contrary and harmful to the thoughtfulness, permanence and individualistic experiences necessary to humanities discourse. Social media is creating a hive mind, a group think that devalues the human condition in favor of the immediate, the marketable and the shallow. In social media, there is no difference between us and others; we look the same, we talk the same, we fill the same space. The real purpose of social media is to gauge measure and ultimately control the behavior of the crowd for marketing purposes. And as social media, and its values of pliable, identifiable collectives based on mutual interests, migrates from the Web to become more ubiquitous in our everyday lives--try attending a movie or buying a meal, the reductionist conversation that it engenders comes with it.The first negative impact that social media has on the humanities is a multiple-choice format and physical structure that allows only for a very limited, narrow type of communication. There is no room for individual creativity or representation. Humanities also require background and context to impart ideas but social media is an equivalency and framework vacuum that decontextualizes and trivializes information in a way that renders it nearly meaningless. The brevity of communication through social media precludes explanation and circumstance.Within social media, all information is equally important. There are no little or big facts; all data is expressed in compact bites of equal weight. The inability to separate the trivial from the significant leaves us unable to glean consequential substance from what we are saying to each other: the very purpose of the humanities.Lastly, social media creates and archives no history. The humanities are about expanding, describing, understanding and transmitting through the generations, the human condition. The purpose of social media is to understand ever larger groups of people at the expense of the individual. Humanities is exactly the opposite: understanding the individual for the sake of the masses.As human beings, our only real method of connection is through authentic communication. Studies show that only 7% of communication is based on the written or verbal word. A whopping 93% is based on nonverbal body language. This is where social media gets dicey. Every relevant metric shows that we are interacting at breakneck speed and frequency through social media. But are we really communicating? With 93% of our communication context stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases, Abbreviations, Snippets, Emoticons, and which may or may not be accurate representations of the truth. In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social; a surrogate for the real thing. For it to be a truly effective communication vehicle, all parties bear a responsibility to be genuine, accurate, and not allow it to replace human contact altogether. In the workplace, the use of electronic communication has overtaken face-to-face and voice-to-voice communication by a wide margin. With these two trends at play, leaders must consider the impact on business relationships and the ability to effectively collaborate, build trust, and create employee engagement and loyalty.Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the lines ‘This is where social media gets dicey’?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:In view of the threat posed by private currencies such as cryptos, CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currency) may seem to be the need of the hour to meet the threat of loss of monetary and later fiscal authority of the sovereign. There are no two opinions on the efficacy of the CBDCs (the Indian version being e-R) if juxtaposed only against the use of private currencies. In that case, the RBI’s e-R pilot is a welcome step. However, the story does not end there. One has to be essentially naive to ignore the larger implications of the overall political economy of digitalisation being attempted in a class-ridden capitalist economy in the neoliberal era. The way the debate is being put across by mainstream media, it appears that as bona fide citizens our choice is limited: digitalise or perish. In such a debate, the dominant voice, as usual, is of the government and of interests represented by finance capitalists. The increasing question and danger of surveillance by the government and curtailment of individual freedom are now expectedly occupying a back seat. However, the danger is real, even with CBDCs. Interestingly, while discussing the possibility of a CBDC in the United Kingdom in 2021, Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, said that programming a digital currency for commercial or social purposes was something the British government needed to consider. He said: “You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.”There is another danger of data being collected and eventually used while one transacts on a digital platform, unlike in cash/currency transactions, where such possibility is eliminated ab initio. So, “programmable digital currency” is a real danger that will likely be a reality in the neoliberal era. Despite the advantages of a digital rupee, there is clear and present danger that its use would be closely monitored by the state, thereby leading to curtailment of individual freedom, huge abuse of data mining, and exponential growth of businesses based on digitalisation. In a country like India, with the existence and frequent reported abuses of the Telegraph Act, 1885, (notwithstanding the safeguards introduced following a Supreme Court judgment in 2007) to eavesdrop on citizens’ communications, the danger of surveillance by the state even in bona fide private exchange of digital currency is a cause for concern despite the assurances given by the RBI Governor.Q.In the context of the passage, what can be deduced from Sir Jon Cunliffes statement, "You could think of giving your children pocket money, but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets."a)It is possible to configure digital currency to impose limitations on its usage for particular purposes.b)Allowing children the freedom to make choices with their pocket money, including buying sweets, can offer valuable educational opportunities.c)Sir Jon Cunliffe advocates for giving children autonomy in deciding how to spend their money.d)Establishing trust and open communication with children regarding money management may be a more effective approach than relying on programmed restrictions.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam