NABARD Practice Test - 6 - Banking Exams MCQ
30 Questions MCQ Test - NABARD Practice Test - 6
Directions
1) If the data in statement I and II are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement III are not required to answer the question
2) If the data in statement I and III are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement II are not required to answer the question
3) If the data in statement II and III are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement I are not required to answer the question
4) If the data given in either statement I alone or statement II alone or statement III alone are sufficient to answer the question
5) If the data in all the statements I, II and III together are not sufficient to answer the question.
Q. There are seven letters M, N, E, I, A, C, H in a word. Is ‘MACHINE’ the word formed after performing the following operations using these seven letters only?
I. A is placed third to the left of I but not at any end and N is the immediate neighbor of I. E is not at the left end while M is not at the right end.
II. H is placed at the center as a neighbor of I while E is not at the left end.
III. C is placed third to the left of N while I is placed third to the right of A. None of these four letters is at any of the ends.
Directions
Each of the questions below consists of a question and three statements numbered I, II and III given below it. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Read all the three statements and
Give answer
1) If the data in statement I and II are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement III are not required to answer the question
2) If the data in statement I and III are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement II are not required to answer the question
3) If the data in statement II and III are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement I are not required to answer the question
4) If the data given in either statement I alone or statement II alone or statement III alone are sufficient to answer the question
5) If the data in all the statements I, II and III together are not sufficient to answer the question.
Q. Out of the eight friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H sitting around a circular table. Is A facing towards the centre?
I. F is immediate neighbor of E but not the neighbor of A. E is not an immediate neighbor of D or C. Three of them are facing the centre.
II. The only one who is sitting in between D and F, is not facing the centre. G is third to the right of A and is facing the centre. C is third to the left of D and both are facing the centre. B is the neighbour of F.
III. F is an immediate neighbor of B and facing outside.
| 1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App |
Directions
Each of the questions below consists of a question and three statements numbered I, II and III given below it. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Read all the three statements and
Give answer
1) If the data in statement I and II are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement III are not required to answer the question
2) If the data in statement I and III are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement II are not required to answer the question
3) If the data in statement II and III are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement I are not required to answer the question
4) If the data given in either statement I alone or statement II alone or statement III alone are sufficient to answer the question
5) If the data in all the statements I, II and III together are not sufficient to answer the question.
Q. Point B is in which direction with respect to point E?
I. Point A is to the north of point D. Point B is to the south of point C. Point E is to the East of point D. Point C is to the south of point A.
II. Point C is to the south of A. Point E is to the south of point D. Point A is to the west of point D. Point B is exactly in the middle of points A and D.
III. Point A is to the west of point D. Point E is to the south of point A. Point C is 9 meter to the South of point D. Point B is to the North west of point C.
Directions
Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.
In a certain code language, ‘I feel very sleepy’ is written as ‘9@R 6?O 22?B 19*B’
‘Sleep in my eyes’ is written as ‘19%K 9!M 13!B 5?H’
‘Manage sleeping skills’ is written as ‘13*V 19+T 19*H’
Q. What will be the code for ‘Manager’?
Directions
Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.
In a certain code language, ‘I feel very sleepy’ is written as ‘9@R 6?O 22?B 19*B’
‘Sleep in my eyes’ is written as ‘19%K 9!M 13!B 5?H’
‘Manage sleeping skills’ is written as ‘13*V 19+T 19*H’
Q. What will be the code for ‘cloud’?
Directions
Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.
In a certain code language, ‘I feel very sleepy’ is written as ‘9@R 6?O 22?B 19*B’
‘Sleep in my eyes’ is written as ‘19%K 9!M 13!B 5?H’
‘Manage sleeping skills’ is written as ‘13*V 19+T 19*H’
Q. What will be the code for ‘Managing skills’?
Directions
Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.
In a certain code language, ‘I feel very sleepy’ is written as ‘9@R 6?O 22?B 19*B’
‘Sleep in my eyes’ is written as ‘19%K 9!M 13!B 5?H’
‘Manage sleeping skills’ is written as ‘13*V 19+T 19*H’
Q. In the given code language, code ‘19*V’ could be of which word?
Directions
In each question below is given a statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement. Give answer
Q. The increased caseload and mortality due to the disease this year compared with last year could be because pre-existing immunity through exposure to the California strain is no longer effective, and people are therefore not immune to the new strain.
I. All diseases cause mortality.
II. California strain is more effective than the new strain.
Directions
In each question below is given a statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement. Give answer
Q. In a rare unanimous verdict pronounced by nine judges, the Supreme Court has ruled that privacy is a fundamental right that requires constitutional protection.
I. Privacy was earlier not considered to be a fundamental right.
II. Rare unanimous verdicts are always pronounced by a bench of nine judges.
Directions
In each question below is given a statement followed by two assumptions numbered I and II. You have to consider the statement and the following assumptions and decide which of the assumptions is implicit in the statement. Give answer
Q. No one bothered to put a traffic blockade in place, as required, and the welding of the tracks could not be completed before the train passed through.
I. The train collapsed injuring many passengers.
II. Signal is required to indicate that the repair work is in progress.
Directions
Study the information given below and answer the questions that follow.
1. M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U are eight family members sitting around a circular table facing the center. Three of the family members are short (under 5 feet) while others are average or tall. All eight family members have different body weight viz. 55 Kg, 60 Kg, 65 Kg, 70 Kg, 72 Kg, 75 Kg, 78 Kg and 80 Kg but not necessarily in the same order. There are two married couples, three brothers, two daughters, one granddaughter and one grandson in the group. Two female members in the group M and U are of same height. The heights are 4.10, 4.11, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 6.0 Feet.
2. T, the head of the family, weighs 80 Kg and is the immediate neighbor of U and Q.
3. S is the granddaughter. T sits third to the right of S, a tall member. On the immediate left of S sits her grandmother.
4. R sits second to the right of his father T. He weighs 75 Kg and is 6 feet tall.
5. T’s only daughter is sitting exactly between M and R. She is 5.7 feet tall and weighs 60 Kg.
6. U weighs 65 Kg and N weighs72 Kg. Neither is 5.6 Feet tall.
7. The son of U is sitting on the immediate left of his father. His father weighs 78 Kg.
8. P weighs 60 Kg and is sitting on the immediate left of her mother.
9. Q, the husband of the one who weighs 65 Kg, is 4.11 tall and his mother is 4.10 feet tall.
10. The one who weighs 72 Kg sits second to the left of M who is an immediate neighbor of those who weigh 55 Kg and 60 kg.
11. The one who weighs 55 Kg is not 5.10 feet tall and the one who weighs 80 Kg is neither 5.6 nor 5.8 feet tall.
Q. What is weight of the granddaughter?
Family Tree T(+) X () | () X () = R(+) = P(-) | S(-) Son of U sits to the immediate left of his father who weighs 78 Kg and U weighs 65 Kg. Thus, U is the mother. Thus, looking into the seating arrangement we can see that, since the son of U has to sit on the immediate left of his father, the only possibility is that U sits at position 2 and Q, the father sits at 8 and the son sits at 7. The only person left is N thus N is the grandson.
Directions
Study the information given below and answer the questions that follow.
1. M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U are eight family members sitting around a circular table facing the center. Three of the family members are short (under 5 feet) while others are average or tall. All eight family members have different body weight viz. 55 Kg, 60 Kg, 65 Kg, 70 Kg, 72 Kg, 75 Kg, 78 Kg and 80 Kg but not necessarily in the same order. There are two married couples, three brothers, two daughters, one granddaughter and one grandson in the group. Two female members in the group M and U are of same height. The heights are 4.10, 4.11, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 6.0 Feet.
2. T, the head of the family, weighs 80 Kg and is the immediate neighbor of U and Q.
3. S is the granddaughter. T sits third to the right of S, a tall member. On the immediate left of S sits her grandmother.
4. R sits second to the right of his father T. He weighs 75 Kg and is 6 feet tall.
5. T’s only daughter is sitting exactly between M and R. She is 5.7 feet tall and weighs 60 Kg.
6. U weighs 65 Kg and N weighs72 Kg. Neither is 5.6 Feet tall.
7. The son of U is sitting on the immediate left of his father. His father weighs 78 Kg.
8. P weighs 60 Kg and is sitting on the immediate left of her mother.
9. Q, the husband of the one who weighs 65 Kg, is 4.11 tall and his mother is 4.10 feet tall.
10. The one who weighs 72 Kg sits second to the left of M who is an immediate neighbor of those who weigh 55 Kg and 60 kg.
11. The one who weighs 55 Kg is not 5.10 feet tall and the one who weighs 80 Kg is neither 5.6 nor 5.8 feet tall.
Q. How is N related to T?
Family Tree T(+) X M(-) | U(-) X Q(+) = R(+) = P(-) | S(-) = N (+) From 9, Q’s height = 4.11 ft U’s weight = 65 Kg M’s height = 4.10 ft From 1, M and U are of the same height, U’s height = 4.10 ft. S = 55 Kg.
Directions
Study the information given below and answer the questions that follow.
1. M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U are eight family members sitting around a circular table facing the center. Three of the family members are short (under 5 feet) while others are average or tall. All eight family members have different body weight viz. 55 Kg, 60 Kg, 65 Kg, 70 Kg, 72 Kg, 75 Kg, 78 Kg and 80 Kg but not necessarily in the same order. There are two married couples, three brothers, two daughters, one granddaughter and one grandson in the group. Two female members in the group M and U are of same height. The heights are 4.10, 4.11, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 6.0 Feet.
2. T, the head of the family, weighs 80 Kg and is the immediate neighbor of U and Q.
3. S is the granddaughter. T sits third to the right of S, a tall member. On the immediate left of S sits her grandmother.
4. R sits second to the right of his father T. He weighs 75 Kg and is 6 feet tall.
5. T’s only daughter is sitting exactly between M and R. She is 5.7 feet tall and weighs 60 Kg.
6. U weighs 65 Kg and N weighs72 Kg. Neither is 5.6 Feet tall.
7. The son of U is sitting on the immediate left of his father. His father weighs 78 Kg.
8. P weighs 60 Kg and is sitting on the immediate left of her mother.
9. Q, the husband of the one who weighs 65 Kg, is 4.11 tall and his mother is 4.10 feet tall.
10. The one who weighs 72 Kg sits second to the left of M who is an immediate neighbor of those who weigh 55 Kg and 60 kg.
11. The one who weighs 55 Kg is not 5.10 feet tall and the one who weighs 80 Kg is neither 5.6 nor 5.8 feet tall.
Q. What is the weight of the daughter in law of M?
Directions
Study the information given below and answer the questions that follow.
1. M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U are eight family members sitting around a circular table facing the center. Three of the family members are short (under 5 feet) while others are average or tall. All eight family members have different body weight viz. 55 Kg, 60 Kg, 65 Kg, 70 Kg, 72 Kg, 75 Kg, 78 Kg and 80 Kg but not necessarily in the same order. There are two married couples, three brothers, two daughters, one granddaughter and one grandson in the group. Two female members in the group M and U are of same height. The heights are 4.10, 4.11, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 6.0 Feet.
2. T, the head of the family, weighs 80 Kg and is the immediate neighbor of U and Q.
3. S is the granddaughter. T sits third to the right of S, a tall member. On the immediate left of S sits her grandmother.
4. R sits second to the right of his father T. He weighs 75 Kg and is 6 feet tall.
5. T’s only daughter is sitting exactly between M and R. She is 5.7 feet tall and weighs 60 Kg.
6. U weighs 65 Kg and N weighs72 Kg. Neither is 5.6 Feet tall.
7. The son of U is sitting on the immediate left of his father. His father weighs 78 Kg.
8. P weighs 60 Kg and is sitting on the immediate left of her mother.
9. Q, the husband of the one who weighs 65 Kg, is 4.11 tall and his mother is 4.10 feet tall.
10. The one who weighs 72 Kg sits second to the left of M who is an immediate neighbor of those who weigh 55 Kg and 60 kg.
11. The one who weighs 55 Kg is not 5.10 feet tall and the one who weighs 80 Kg is neither 5.6 nor 5.8 feet tall.
Q. Which of the following given pairs are siblings?
Directions
Study the information given below and answer the questions that follow.
1. M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U are eight family members sitting around a circular table facing the center. Three of the family members are short (under 5 feet) while others are average or tall. All eight family members have different body weight viz. 55 Kg, 60 Kg, 65 Kg, 70 Kg, 72 Kg, 75 Kg, 78 Kg and 80 Kg but not necessarily in the same order. There are two married couples, three brothers, two daughters, one granddaughter and one grandson in the group. Two female members in the group M and U are of same height. The heights are 4.10, 4.11, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 6.0 Feet.
2. T, the head of the family, weighs 80 Kg and is the immediate neighbor of U and Q.
3. S is the granddaughter. T sits third to the right of S, a tall member. On the immediate left of S sits her grandmother.
4. R sits second to the right of his father T. He weighs 75 Kg and is 6 feet tall.
5. T’s only daughter is sitting exactly between M and R. She is 5.7 feet tall and weighs 60 Kg.
6. U weighs 65 Kg and N weighs72 Kg. Neither is 5.6 Feet tall.
7. The son of U is sitting on the immediate left of his father. His father weighs 78 Kg.
8. P weighs 60 Kg and is sitting on the immediate left of her mother.
9. Q, the husband of the one who weighs 65 Kg, is 4.11 tall and his mother is 4.10 feet tall.
10. The one who weighs 72 Kg sits second to the left of M who is an immediate neighbor of those who weigh 55 Kg and 60 kg.
11. The one who weighs 55 Kg is not 5.10 feet tall and the one who weighs 80 Kg is neither 5.6 nor 5.8 feet tall.
Q. Who sits exactly between grandfather and the grandson?
Directions
In each question below some statements followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV are given. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.
Q. Statements:
All gems are stones.
Some stones are diamonds.
Some diamonds are jewelry.
Conclusions:
I. Some jewelry are stones
II. Some gems are jewelry.
III. Some diamonds are gems.
IV. All stones are gems.
Directions
In each question below some statements followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV are given. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.
Statements:
All nice are tampered.
All tampered are beaten.
All mixed are beaten.
Conclusions:
I. No tampered is mixed.
II. Some mixed are tampered.
III. Some beaten are nice.
IV. Some mixed are nice
Directions
In each question below some statements followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV are given. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the two given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.
Statements:
Some hellos are byes.
Some byes are hi.
All hi are long.
All long are far.
Conclusion:
I. Some far are byes.
II. Some far are hellos.
III. Some long are byes.
IV. Some far are hi.
Directions
On 2nd October Holiday, Sheetal wants to buy a dress online through online shopping app and chooses to apply certain filters in the app, for the selection of the dress of her choice. The filter conditions are the following. The dress must:
a) be of knee length and of a bright colour (yellow, pink, peach, mustard, orange, red, green, light blue)
b) have either 3/4th sleeves or full sleeves.
c) cost less than Rupees 800
d) be of Rayon, Chiffon, cotton, georgette
e) be delivered within 4 days
1. M, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U are eight family members sitting around a circular table facing the center. Three of the family members are short (under 5 feet) while others are average or tall. All eight family members have different body weight viz. 55 Kg, 60 Kg, 65 Kg, 70 Kg, 72 Kg, 75 Kg, 78 Kg and 80 Kg but not necessarily in the same order. There are two married couples, three brothers, two daughters, one granddaughter and one grandson in the group. Two female members in the group M and U are of same height. The heights are 4.10, 4.11, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 6.0 Feet.
2. T, the head of the family, weighs 80 Kg and is the immediate neighbor of U and Q.
3. S is the granddaughter. T sits third to the right of S, a tall member. On the immediate left of S sits her grandmother.
4. R sits second to the right of his father T. He weighs 75 Kg and is 6 feet tall.
5. T’s only daughter is sitting exactly between M and R. She is 5.7 feet tall and weighs 60 Kg.
6. U weighs 65 Kg and N weighs72 Kg. Neither is 5.6 Feet tall.
7. The son of U is sitting on the immediate left of his father. His father weighs 78 Kg.
8. P weighs 60 Kg and is sitting on the immediate left of her mother.
9. Q, the husband of the one who weighs 65 Kg, is 4.11 tall and his mother is 4.10 feet tall.
10. The one who weighs 72 Kg sits second to the left of M who is an immediate neighbor of those who weigh 55 Kg and 60 kg.
11. The one who weighs 55 Kg is not 5.10 feet tall and the one who weighs 80 Kg is neither 5.6 nor 5.8 feet tall.
Q. Which of the following dresses will appear after the application of the filter?
Directions
Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below.
The implementation of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail system (VVPAT) was to have been undertaken by the EC in a phased manner, but this blanket use appears to have been expedited after a series of unwarranted attacks on EVMs by some political parties and scaremongers. The EC had sought to allay concerns and confront allegations of voter fraud by running through the administrative and technological safeguards instituted to keep EVMs and the voting process tamper-proof.
Q. Which of the following contradicts the views expressed in the above statements?
Directions
Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
What according to the passage is the reason for the high gain of the Indian currency?
Directions
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
Q. How does the rise or fall of rupee affects the Nifty companies?
Directions
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
Q. Which of the following statements is definitely true according to the passage?
Directions
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
Q. Find the word from the given options which has its meaning most similar to the word muster as used in the passage.
Directions
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
The Indian rupee has turned out to be one of the best-performing currencies in the world with a gain of well over 6% against the U.S. dollar this year to date. In fact, the currency hit a two-year high of 63.60 last week, supported by strong inflows of foreign capital. Around the beginning of 2017, analysts were bearish on the rupee, predicting that it would breach the 70-mark by the end of the year. But strong capital inflow has managed to turn the tide. According to the Reserve Bank of India, foreign portfolio investors invested $15.2 billion in India’s equity and debt markets this year until the end of July. In addition, foreign direct investment in April-May doubled compared to last year. Such generous inflow of capital, of course, is in sharp contrast to 2013 when the tightening of policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve had rattled the rupee. This time around, emerging markets have escaped any such taper tantrum as the Fed’s approach towards tightening has been measured. Another major contributor to the rupee’s strength is the RBI’s hawkish stance, which has pushed down domestic retail inflation to a record low of just around 2%. This has spilled over to influence the external value of the rupee as well. Oil prices remaining stable at around the $50 mark too has helped as Indians have had to shell out fewer rupees on oil imports. This is reflected in the improved current account deficit, which stood at 0.7% of GDP in 2016-17 compared to almost 4.8% in 2012-13.
Notably, worries about the impact of a strong rupee on exports have risen in tandem — particularly in sectors such as pharma and information technology. There is little doubt that an appreciating rupee will affect the competitiveness of Indian exporters. In fact, it is estimated by UBS that each 1% appreciation in the external value of the rupee causes earnings of Nifty companies to drop by 0.6%. The question, however, is whether it is sufficient reason to tinker with the value of the currency in a way that makes it expensive for Indians to import goods. After all, any protectionist action, particularly in today’s low-growth global environment where countries look to steal growth from each other, is likely to draw retaliatory action. This will not bode well for the growth prospects of India or any other country. Exporters should instead be pushed to adapt to the uncertainties of doing business across borders. And the rupee’s improving external value should be seen, at least in part, as a reflection of the improving quality of the currency. The central bank has thus clearly done well for now by not fiddling with the value of the rupee. At the same time, it would be foolhardy to take things for granted. Going forward, tighter monetary policy in the West will invariably exert more pressure on the rupee. The RBI would then have to mustergreater will to let the rupee find its natural value.
Q. Find the word from the given options which has its meaning most opposite to the word tinker as used in the passage
Directions
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
Q. The key aspects of which progressive law have been asked to be implemented by the Supreme Court?
Directions
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
Q. Which of the following statements is definitely true according to the passage?
Directions
Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
“A minimum of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% of the population in urban areas must be given subsidised food grains”
Q. This statement is
Directions
Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
Q. Find the word from the given options which has its meaning most similar to the word egalitarian as used in the passage.
Directions
Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.
The National Food Security Act, 2013, has met with prolonged political indifference, but there is some hope now since the Centre has been asked by the Supreme Court to ensure that States implement key aspects of the progressive law. The directives in the Swaraj Abhiyan case underscore the depressing reality that several State governments have not met key requirements in the legislation which empower the common person in securing subsidised food. Sections 14, 15 and 16, which require the setting up of a grievance redress mechanism and a State Food Commission with responsibility to monitor the implementation of the law, have been heeded only in name, as in Haryana, or not at all. Union Food Minister’s claim last November that the Act covers the entire country is, therefore, not consistent with the facts. As the court has pointed out, Article 256, which casts a responsibility on the States and the Union to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament, also provides the remedy, as it can be invoked by the Centre to set things right. Unfortunately, the NFSA, which is vital for social security through the Public Distribution System and child welfare schemes, has suffered due to a lack of political will.
As a law with egalitarian goals, the NFSA should have set the floor for food security through the principle of universal access, though not every citizen would need it. There is great merit in providing highly subsidised food grains to targeted households chosen by the State governments, with a ceiling of 75% of the population in rural areas and 50% in urban areas. But the system should have in-built mechanisms to allow for the entry of new households that suddenly find themselves in financial distress, while others can exit it based on changed circumstances. Such arrangements can be made only when there is a full-fledged, independent machinery in the form of a Food Commission, and district-level grievance redress, besides social audits. All these are provided for under the Act, but have been ignored. Modernisation of the PDS, with the use of information technology, could incorporate such dynamic features to the supply of subsidised food to those who need it, and eliminate deficiencies and fraud. Now that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has been given specific directives by the court to complete the unfinished tasks this year, it should make up for lost time. As is widely acknowledged, some States are better at running the PDS than others, and the food security law is the best tool to raise standards uniformly. Food Ministry data presented to Parliament show that the present system does not reflect the true scale of public grievances, with a mere 1,106 complaints received from beneficiaries nationwide in 2016, including those reported in the media. The court’s intervention is wholly welcome to make the NFSA meaningful.
Q. Find the word from the given options which has its meaning most opposite to the word invoked as used in the passage.
Top Courses for Banking Exams
Important Questions for NABARD Practice Test - 6
NABARD Practice Test - 6 MCQs with Answers
Online Tests for NABARD Practice Test - 6
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
