HPPSC HPAS Prelims Paper 2 Mock Test - 5 - HPPSC HPAS (Himachal Pardesh) MCQ

How many glacial lakes in the Himalayan states are identified as potentially hazardous by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)?

Which of the following is a suggested measure to manage the risks associated with GLOFs?

What is a major challenge associated with the BIMSTEC organization?

What is the primary goal of the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI)?

Which of the following is a significant reason for the low female Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) in India?

What is the theme of the 6th International Conference on Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (ICDRI)?

Which legislative act in India aims to provide protection to women from domestic violence?

What is a major consequence of climate change on global infrastructure investments?

A person's present age is two-fifth of the age of his mother. After 8 years, he will be one-half of the age of his mother. How old is the mother at present?

Which one will replace the question mark ?

How many different words can be formed with the letter of the word DELHI. If these words begin with D and ends with H?

In the following question assuming the given statements to be True, find which of the conclusion among given conclusions is/are definitely true and then give your answers accordingly.

Statements: 
Q > J ≥ M > L = K < S

Conclusions:

I. Q > L

II. J > K

III. L < S

Direction: Study the following information and answer the given questions carefully.

Anurag is standing at point P, facing the north direction. He starts walking towards the west and reaches point Q after walking 12m. Then he moves 12m to his right towards point R. From point R, he again moves his right to reach point S, which is 8m apart from point R. He again moves towards the right to reach point T after covering a distance of 6m from point S. Finally, he moves 12m to his left to reach point U.

Q. Point U is in _____ direction of point S.

Direction: Study the following information and answer the given questions carefully.

John started walking from point A. Point B is 20cm north of point A. Point A is 6cm east of point H. Point B is 6cm west of point G. Point C is 6cm west of point E. Point D is 20cm south of point G. Point C is the midpoint of points D and G. Point E is 10cm north of point F.

Q. In which direction is point H with respect to point G?

The biggest gain from the Union Government's welcome decision to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal is that it may be the first and most significant step towards a permanent solution to the persistent conflict over sharing the inter-State river's waters. A positive feature is that implementation ofthe final award will involve the formation of a Cauvery Management Board to regulate the supply of water and a Water Regulation Committee, which will post representatives in each of the eight reservoirs in the basin states, to ensure that the decisions are carried out. Giving finality to the award through the notification may help take the issue away from politics and place it in the hands of a technical, expert body. The February 2007 award has been questioned by way of clarification petitions before the Tribunal itself as well as suits in the Supreme Court by both parties and sceptics may wonder how useful the gazette notification may be now. The parties are still free to pursue their clarification petitions and appeals, but in the larger interest of a long term solution and to end seasonal acrimony, they would do well to give the award a chance.
The fact that notifying the award has been a long pending demand ofTamil Nadu should not make one believe that the action redounds to one party's benefit to the detriment of the other. It was the Supreme Court that made the suggestion that the final decision be notified and counsel for all the basin states have agreed that it should be done. It may be argued that gazetting the award will not resolve the present standoff over judicial and administrative directives to Karnataka to release water to save standing crops in Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, while asking Karnataka to ensure 12 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu in December, has itself admitted that its decision is unlikely to satisfy either party, given that both states have less water in their reservoirs than in previous years. Yet, is has opted for a pragmatic solution under which both states will be in deficit of approximately 47 tmcft. It is the same spirit of pragmatism that both states must now approach the larger problem of sharing water as per a judicially determined solution in both normal and distress years. The two should not let posterity say of them that long after equitable distribution has entrenched itself as the most acceptable doctrine in riverine jurisprudence, they did not allow a judicially determines system for sharing to work.

Q.

It can be inferred that notifying the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal could lead to

The biggest gain from the Union Government's welcome decision to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal is that it may be the first and most significant step towards a permanent solution to the persistent conflict over sharing the inter-State river's waters. A positive feature is that implementation ofthe final award will involve the formation of a Cauvery Management Board to regulate the supply of water and a Water Regulation Committee, which will post representatives in each of the eight reservoirs in the basin states, to ensure that the decisions are carried out. Giving finality to the award through the notification may help take the issue away from politics and place it in the hands of a technical, expert body. The February 2007 award has been questioned by way of clarification petitions before the Tribunal itself as well as suits in the Supreme Court by both parties and sceptics may wonder how useful the gazette notification may be now. The parties are still free to pursue their clarification petitions and appeals, but in the larger interest of a long term solution and to end seasonal acrimony, they would do well to give the award a chance.
The fact that notifying the award has been a long pending demand ofTamil Nadu should not make one believe that the action redounds to one party's benefit to the detriment of the other. It was the Supreme Court that made the suggestion that the final decision be notified and counsel for all the basin states have agreed that it should be done. It may be argued that gazetting the award will not resolve the present standoff over judicial and administrative directives to Karnataka to release water to save standing crops in Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, while asking Karnataka to ensure 12 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu in December, has itself admitted that its decision is unlikely to satisfy either party, given that both states have less water in their reservoirs than in previous years. Yet, is has opted for a pragmatic solution under which both states will be in deficit of approximately 47 tmcft. It is the same spirit of pragmatism that both states must now approach the larger problem of sharing water as per a judicially determined solution in both normal and distress years. The two should not let posterity say of them that long after equitable distribution has entrenched itself as the most acceptable doctrine in riverine jurisprudence, they did not allow a judicially determines system for sharing to work.

Q.
 

Which of the following options cannot be inferred as a negation with respect to the award of the tribunal?

The biggest gain from the Union Government's welcome decision to notify the final award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal is that it may be the first and most significant step towards a permanent solution to the persistent conflict over sharing the inter-State river's waters. A positive feature is that implementation ofthe final award will involve the formation of a Cauvery Management Board to regulate the supply of water and a Water Regulation Committee, which will post representatives in each of the eight reservoirs in the basin states, to ensure that the decisions are carried out. Giving finality to the award through the notification may help take the issue away from politics and place it in the hands of a technical, expert body. The February 2007 award has been questioned by way of clarification petitions before the Tribunal itself as well as suits in the Supreme Court by both parties and sceptics may wonder how useful the gazette notification may be now. The parties are still free to pursue their clarification petitions and appeals, but in the larger interest of a long term solution and to end seasonal acrimony, they would do well to give the award a chance.
The fact that notifying the award has been a long pending demand ofTamil Nadu should not make one believe that the action redounds to one party's benefit to the detriment of the other. It was the Supreme Court that made the suggestion that the final decision be notified and counsel for all the basin states have agreed that it should be done. It may be argued that gazetting the award will not resolve the present standoff over judicial and administrative directives to Karnataka to release water to save standing crops in Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee, while asking Karnataka to ensure 12 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu in December, has itself admitted that its decision is unlikely to satisfy either party, given that both states have less water in their reservoirs than in previous years. Yet, is has opted for a pragmatic solution under which both states will be in deficit of approximately 47 tmcft. It is the same spirit of pragmatism that both states must now approach the larger problem of sharing water as per a judicially determined solution in both normal and distress years. The two should not let posterity say of them that long after equitable distribution has entrenched itself as the most acceptable doctrine in riverine jurisprudence, they did not allow a judicially determines system for sharing to work.

Q.
 

Consider the following assumptions:
1. The 2 parties in the dispute should favour the setting up of the tribunal as it will bring some resolution to the issue
2. The dispute between the 2 parties is best solved through the judicial route.

Which of the following assumptions are valid?

The 2 month long offer of amnesty and regularisation for emigrant workers that the UAE launched on December 4 constitutes a legitimate clean-up effort. It will let those who have overstayed their visa or lack proper documentation, to either leave without penalty or regularise their stay by paying fines. The fact that more than 45000 Indians are expected to seek amnesty in this round points to the scale of this problem. The UAE had offered similar amnesty schemes in 2007, 2002 and 1996, which led to a total of 842,000 people either legalising their stay or leaving without being penalised. On its part, India ought to handle the situation with sensitivity and understanding. One of the demands this time is for the waiver of, or reduction in, the fee for the issue of Emergency Exit Certificates. Following hints from India that this might indeed be done, the response to the amnesty process has so far been slow. The Central and State governments should take steps to encourage people to come forward and legitimise their status. The authorities should decide on the fee liability, and whether free air passage could be provided to the returnees, many of them low paid workers. Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs has favoured this in deserving cases. 

On a broader plane, the situation highlights the need for well regulated and orderly processes for those who seek to emigrate in search of livelihood. It is well known that dodgy practices resorted to by recruiting agents, who work hand in glove with unregulated visa-providers, often hold out before prospective emigrants false promises in terms of the nature of work and the quantum of pay. Sponsors and employers who illegally retain passports to keep migrants in thrall and those who deny fair wages and reasonable working conditions, continue to have a field day as opportunities shrink. The Emigration Act should be tightened to ensure harsher punishment for malpractices. The Indian consular corps need to provide a more accessible and enabling environment to emigrants in distress. Bilateral agreements that have been periodically announced have not entirely succeeded in ensuring the welfare and protection of Indian workers, especially those at the lower end of the wage band. Also taking into account the economic dividend that accrues to the economy thanks to significant remittances from the Gulf countries, India should take a long term view and work to safeguard the welfare of the diaspora.

Q.

Which of the following cannot be taken as a logical explanation for the emigrant problem in the UAE?

The 2 month long offer of amnesty and regularisation for emigrant workers that the UAE launched on December 4 constitutes a legitimate clean-up effort. It will let those who have overstayed their visa or lack proper documentation, to either leave without penalty or regularise their stay by paying fines. The fact that more than 45000 Indians are expected to seek amnesty in this round points to the scale of this problem. The UAE had offered similar amnesty schemes in 2007, 2002 and 1996, which led to a total of 842,000 people either legalising their stay or leaving without being penalised. On its part, India ought to handle the situation with sensitivity and understanding. One of the demands this time is for the waiver of, or reduction in, the fee for the issue of Emergency Exit Certificates. Following hints from India that this might indeed be done, the response to the amnesty process has so far been slow. The Central and State governments should take steps to encourage people to come forward and legitimise their status. The authorities should decide on the fee liability, and whether free air passage could be provided to the returnees, many of them low paid workers. Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs has favoured this in deserving cases. 

On a broader plane, the situation highlights the need for well regulated and orderly processes for those who seek to emigrate in search of livelihood. It is well known that dodgy practices resorted to by recruiting agents, who work hand in glove with unregulated visa-providers, often hold out before prospective emigrants false promises in terms of the nature of work and the quantum of pay. Sponsors and employers who illegally retain passports to keep migrants in thrall and those who deny fair wages and reasonable working conditions, continue to have a field day as opportunities shrink. The Emigration Act should be tightened to ensure harsher punishment for malpractices. The Indian consular corps need to provide a more accessible and enabling environment to emigrants in distress. Bilateral agreements that have been periodically announced have not entirely succeeded in ensuring the welfare and protection of Indian workers, especially those at the lower end of the wage band. Also taking into account the economic dividend that accrues to the economy thanks to significant remittances from the Gulf countries, India should take a long term view and work to safeguard the welfare of the diaspora.

Q.

Which of the following options aptly perceives the role that the Indian government can play for emigrants to the UAE?

The 2 month long offer of amnesty and regularisation for emigrant workers that the UAE launched on December 4 constitutes a legitimate clean-up effort. It will let those who have overstayed their visa or lack proper documentation, to either leave without penalty or regularise their stay by paying fines. The fact that more than 45000 Indians are expected to seek amnesty in this round points to the scale of this problem. The UAE had offered similar amnesty schemes in 2007, 2002 and 1996, which led to a total of 842,000 people either legalising their stay or leaving without being penalised. On its part, India ought to handle the situation with sensitivity and understanding. One of the demands this time is for the waiver of, or reduction in, the fee for the issue of Emergency Exit Certificates. Following hints from India that this might indeed be done, the response to the amnesty process has so far been slow. The Central and State governments should take steps to encourage people to come forward and legitimise their status. The authorities should decide on the fee liability, and whether free air passage could be provided to the returnees, many of them low paid workers. Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs has favoured this in deserving cases. 

On a broader plane, the situation highlights the need for well regulated and orderly processes for those who seek to emigrate in search of livelihood. It is well known that dodgy practices resorted to by recruiting agents, who work hand in glove with unregulated visa-providers, often hold out before prospective emigrants false promises in terms of the nature of work and the quantum of pay. Sponsors and employers who illegally retain passports to keep migrants in thrall and those who deny fair wages and reasonable working conditions, continue to have a field day as opportunities shrink. The Emigration Act should be tightened to ensure harsher punishment for malpractices. The Indian consular corps need to provide a more accessible and enabling environment to emigrants in distress. Bilateral agreements that have been periodically announced have not entirely succeeded in ensuring the welfare and protection of Indian workers, especially those at the lower end of the wage band. Also taking into account the economic dividend that accrues to the economy thanks to significant remittances from the Gulf countries, India should take a long term view and work to safeguard the welfare of the diaspora.

Q.

Consider the following assumptions:
1. Illegal immigrants wait for the offers of amnesty of the UAE government to either legalize their stay or leave without paying fines.
2. A lot of the people seeking amnesty are workers who may have been detained in the UAE against their better judgement.

Which of the given assumptions are valid?

Each of the items below consists of a question and two statements. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer as:
A: If the question can be answered by data in one of the statements only, but not the other
B: If the data either in statement I or in statement II is sufficient to answer the question
C: If the data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question and
D: If the data in both statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q.

How many gift boxes were sold on Monday?
Statements:
I. It was 10% more than the boxes sold on the earlier day i.e. Sunday.

II. Every third visitor to the shop purchased the box and 1500 visitors were there on Sunday

Each of the item below consists of a question and two statements. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer as:
A: If the question can be answered by data in one of the statements only, but not the other
B: If the data either in statement I or in statement II is sufficient to answer the question
C: If the data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question and
D: If the data in both statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q.

What is Rakesh's position from the right end in a row of children?
Statements:
I. There are 10 children between Rakesh and Rohan.
II. Rohan is twentieth from the left end of the row of children.

Each of the item below consists of a question and two statements. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer as:
 

A: If the question can be answered by data in one of the statements only, but not the other
B: If the data either in statement I or in statement II is sufficient to answer the question
C: If the data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question and
D: If the data in both statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q.

Which train did Anuj catch to go to office?
Statements:
I. Anuj missed his usual train of 10.25 a.m. A train comes in every 5 minutes.
II. Anuj did not catch the 10.40 a.m. train or any train after that time.

Each of the items below consists of a question and two statements. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer as:
A: If the question can be answered by data in one of the statements only, but not the other
B: If the data either in statement I or in statement II is sufficient to answer the question
C: If the data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question and
D: If the data in both statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q.

On which day of the week did Jeetu visit the zoo?
Statements:
I. Jeetu did not visit zoo either on Tuesday or on Thursday.
II. Jeetu visited zoo two days before his mother reached his house which was day after Monday.

Each of the items below consists of a question and two statements. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer as:
A: If the question can be answered by data in one of the statements only, but not the other
B: If the data either in statement I or in statement II is sufficient to answer the question
C: If the data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question and
D: If the data in both statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q.

The Chairman of a big company visits one department on Monday of every week except for the Monday of third week of every month. When did he visit the Sales department?
Statements:
I. He visited Accounts department in the second week of September after having visited Sales department on the earlier occasion.
II. He had visited Sales department immediately after visiting Stores department but before visiting Accounts department.

Each of the items below consists of a question and two statements. You have to decide whether the data provided in the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Give answer as:
A: If the question can be answered by data in one of the statements only, but not the other
B: If the data either in statement I or in statement II is sufficient to answer the question
C: If the data given in both statements I and II together are not sufficient to answer the question and
D: If the data in both statements I and II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q.

What is the monthly salary of Sachin?
Statements:
I. Sachin gets 15% more than Rakesh while Rakesh gets 10% less than Lokesh.
II. Lokesh's monthly salary is Rs 2500.

Mrs. Pathak is a successful and able worker. She carries hope and positive energy. But she has an opponent in Mr. Naynar who cannot see eye-to-eye with her in the office. Mr. Ramgoswamy (Mrs. Pathak's Boss) is very fond of Mrs. Pathak because of her past record of successes and sense of optimism. Mrs. Pathak came up with a proposal having complete confidence in its success. But, as usual Mr. Naynar opposed it. What should Mr. Ramgoswamy do?