NABARD English Language Practice: 1 - Banking Exams MCQ

In the following passage, there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.

At the core of the privatisation, the debate is the key ..( 1)… of labour ..( 2). One of the long-standing demands of industry, both Indian and foreign, have been to ..( 3)…labour laws as ..( 4).. under the Industrial Disputes Act. These laws do not allow the industry to reward merit and punish non-performers. Also, in the ..( 5).. of an economic slowdown or shifting market preferences, they do not permit downsizing of the workforce. Ideally, the industry should be free to contract or expand with changing technology, competition and obsolescence.

In the following passage, there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word in each case.

At the core of the privatisation, the debate is the key ..( 1)… of labour ..( 2). One of the long-standing demands of industry, both Indian and foreign, have been to ..( 3)…labour laws as ..( 4).. under the Industrial Disputes Act. These laws do not allow the industry to reward merit and punish non-performers. Also, in the ..( 5).. of an economic slowdown or shifting market preferences, they do not permit downsizing of the workforce. Ideally, the industry should be free to contract or expand with changing technology, competition and obsolescence.

Pick out the most effective word from the given words to fill in the blanks to make the sentence meaningfully complete.

Q. Forest department officials said that when the elephants were made to…………..from their trucks they went straight to the spot where they had been …………..during the camp.

Pick out the most effective word from the given words to fill in the blanks to make the sentence meaningfully complete.

Q. Excise official seized pouches of whisky…………..a bus travelling…………..Maharashtra.

Pick out the most effective word from the given words to fill in the blanks to make the sentence meaningfully complete.

Q. Organisations…………..for the victims…………..the inhuman and unjust attitude of the government.

Pick out the most effective word from the given words to fill in the blanks to make the sentence meaningfully complete.

Q. A collision between two buses…………..six people dead,…………..the driver of one of the buses.

Pick out the most effective word from the given words to fill in the blanks to make the sentence meaningfully complete.

Q. The court…………..revenue authorities and PCB officials to …………..teams and visit pharma units.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. The passage seems to emphasize that the outside world has

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. According to the Westerners the solution to eradicate poverty of African nations lies in

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. The author has given the example of Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan in support of his argument that

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. The author has mentioned Ghana as a country with

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. The cases of malaria in Africa are mainly due to
(A) high temperature
(B) climate conditions conducive for breeding.
(C) malaria carriers’ liking for human blood in preference to that of cattle.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. The remark of former U.S. Secretary of the treasury, Paul O’Neil, is according to the author

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. Choose the word/ group of words which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word/group of words printed in underline as used in the passage.

OBLIGATION

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. Choose the word/ group of words which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word/group of words printed in underline as used in the passage.

SQUANDER

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. Choose the word/ group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in underline as used in the passage.

MYTH

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in underline to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.

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

Q. Choose the word/ group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in underline as used in the passage.

EXTENSIVE

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C),(D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph: then answer the questions given below them.
(A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers.
(B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts.
(C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes.
(D) This impact can run into decades and centuries.
(E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past and our future.
(F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Q. Which is the FIFTH sentence of the passage after the rearrangement?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C),(D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph: then answer the questions given below them.
(A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers.
(B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts.
(C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes.
(D) This impact can run into decades and centuries.
(E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past and our future.
(F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Q. Which is the THIRD sentence of the passage?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C),(D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph: then answer the questions given below them.
(A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers.
(B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts.
(C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes.
(D) This impact can run into decades and centuries.
(E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past and our future.
(F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Q. Which is the SECOND sentence of the passage?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C),(D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph: then answer the questions given below them.
(A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers.
(B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts.
(C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes.
(D) This impact can run into decades and centuries.
(E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past and our future.
(F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Q. Which is the LAST (SIXTH) sentence of the passage ‘?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C),(D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph: then answer the questions given below them.
(A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers.
(B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts.
(C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes.
(D) This impact can run into decades and centuries.
(E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past and our future.
(F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Q. Which is the FIRST sentence of the passage?

Which of the phrases (A), (B), (C), (D) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in underline type to make the sentence grammatically correct ‘? If the sentence is correct mark (E) i.e. ‘No correction required’ as the answer.

Q. Please take out your shoes and put out the light.

Which of the phrases (A), (B), (C), (D) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in underline type to make the sentence grammatically correct ‘? If the sentence is a correct mark (E) i.e. ‘No correction required’ as the answer.

Q. On account of she lacked a sense of responsibility I confiscated the keys.

Which of the phrases (A), (B), (C), (D) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in underline type to make the sentence grammatically correct ‘? If the sentence is correct mark (E) i.e. ‘No correction required’ as the answer.

Q. We are constantly surrounding of sounds and noise.

Which of the phrases (A), (B), (C), (D) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in underline type to make the sentence grammatically correct ‘? If the sentence is correct mark (E) i.e. ‘No correction required’ as the answer.
Q. I leave in hurry because it was getting dark.

Which of the phrases (A), (B), (C), (D) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in underline type to make the sentence grammatically correct ‘? If the sentence is a correct mark (E) i.e. ‘No correction required’ as the answer.
Q. Sachin is older of the two sons.