Reading Comprehension

Why does the author say ‘We are a nation of the hypocrites’? How is it demonstrated, if at all?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

While referring to the Uniform Civil Code, the author uses the expression ‘the part of the constitution they seemingly venerate’. What does this suggest?
(I) It suggests that all articles of the constitution are held with the same degree of esteem.
(II) It suggests that the respect the politicians show to the constitution is not real or genuine.
(III) It suggests that the Uniform Civil Code is the part of the same constitution which they publicly eulogize and venerate.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

The article leads to the conclusion that the author is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

What is the central theme of this passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

Which of the following is one of the conclusions the author appears to have drawn?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

Which of the following is not true according to the author?

1. Whatever impacted the Euro zone impacted the whole world
2. Financial sector crisis of the US left the world economy in tatters
3. US and Euro zones are the two economic superpowers of the world
4. Sovereign debt crisis is the worst crisis to have hit the world

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The global economy has witnessed two macro economic crises in the last three years shattering the entire gamut of economic growth parameters across the world. Crisis number one is the banking crisis after the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and crisis number two is the on-going sovereign debt crisis of the European Union. The commonality between the two is that they originated in two major economic super power zones: the first one in USA and the second one in EU and thereafter percolated to other parts of the world impacting the growth forces of the world economy. However, the two are different in nature in as much as the US crisis originated from financial sector fall out popularly known as the sub-prime crisis and the EU sovereign debt crisis originated from fiscal fallout. Much has already been written about the financial sector crisis of US. The Sovereign debt crisis of EU is still like hot potato and therefore more pertinent for a detailed discussion.
The crux of the EU sovereign debt crisis was rooted in the Greek debt crisis. The Greek economy was one of the fastest growing economies in the euro zone from 2000 to 2007; during that period it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country. A strong economy and falling bond yields allowed the government to run large structural deficits. Successive governments for years had been customarily running large deficits to Finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits. Since 1993 the ratio of debt to GDP had remained above 100%. After the introduction of euro in January 2001, Greece was initially able to borrow due to the lower interest rates government bonds commanded. Many member countries including Greece borrowed from the rest of the world, especially from the member nations, huge sums by issuing sovereign securities deliberately keeping yields low. But it failed to repay the coupon and the principal when the securities became due for redemption. To obfuscate the simmering problem from public gaze, it further borrowed issuing fresh securities.
The Greek government bond market relied on foreign investors, with some estimates suggesting that up to 70% of Greek government bonds were held externally. The late-2000s financial crisis that began in 2007 made a severe impact on Greece. Two of the country’s largest industries are tourism and shipping, and both were badly affected by the downturn with revenues falling 15% in 2009. Estimated tax evasion costs the Greek government over $20 billion per year.
As the majority of outstanding debt of Greece is held by other member nations, default of Greece resulted in loss to the member countries. Greece’s debt crisis led to instability in euro, the common currency of EU. There are fears of public debt crises spreading to other EU nations. After the fiscal crisis of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain also suffered the similar crisis, though to a lesser extent. To stem the rot, European leaders announced a $1 trillion bailout package in collaboration with IMF. EU Finance ministers pledged to tighten penalties on countries with runaway fiscal deficits. One of the problems facing the euro countries is the disagreement between Greece and the trio of rescuers, EU, IMF and ECB, over the conditions of bail out. The bail-out package will be available subject to the condition that the beneficiary country will have to go for fiscal austerity in terms of reducing fiscal deficit. This could lead to the imposition of additional taxation and curbing corruption and tax evasion. The measures will lead to tje cooling down of industrial growth and increasing of unemployment. Hence, the public at large in Greece are up in arms against the conditions of the second bail-out package. (Excerpted from PNB Monthly Review of Jan 12)

According to the author, what of the following cannot be attributed as the chief reason for this sovereign debt crisis originating in Greece?

1. Reliance of Greek government bonds on foreign investors and its failure to redeem the bonds contributed to this crisis in the main.
2. It originated in Greece because its economy was one of the fastest growing economies of the world.
3. Greece had incurred huge losses in tourism and shipping and was unable to honour its external debt commitments.
4. It originated in Greece because this sovereign debt crisis was actually rooted in the Greek debt crisis.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The global economy has witnessed two macro economic crises in the last three years shattering the entire gamut of economic growth parameters across the world. Crisis number one is the banking crisis after the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and crisis number two is the on-going sovereign debt crisis of the European Union. The commonality between the two is that they originated in two major economic super power zones: the first one in USA and the second one in EU and thereafter percolated to other parts of the world impacting the growth forces of the world economy. However, the two are different in nature in as much as the US crisis originated from financial sector fall out popularly known as the sub-prime crisis and the EU sovereign debt crisis originated from fiscal fallout. Much has already been written about the financial sector crisis of US. The Sovereign debt crisis of EU is still like hot potato and therefore more pertinent for a detailed discussion.
The crux of the EU sovereign debt crisis was rooted in the Greek debt crisis. The Greek economy was one of the fastest growing economies in the euro zone from 2000 to 2007; during that period it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country. A strong economy and falling bond yields allowed the government to run large structural deficits. Successive governments for years had been customarily running large deficits to Finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits. Since 1993 the ratio of debt to GDP had remained above 100%. After the introduction of euro in January 2001, Greece was initially able to borrow due to the lower interest rates government bonds commanded. Many member countries including Greece borrowed from the rest of the world, especially from the member nations, huge sums by issuing sovereign securities deliberately keeping yields low. But it failed to repay the coupon and the principal when the securities became due for redemption. To obfuscate the simmering problem from public gaze, it further borrowed issuing fresh securities.
The Greek government bond market relied on foreign investors, with some estimates suggesting that up to 70% of Greek government bonds were held externally. The late-2000s financial crisis that began in 2007 made a severe impact on Greece. Two of the country’s largest industries are tourism and shipping, and both were badly affected by the downturn with revenues falling 15% in 2009. Estimated tax evasion costs the Greek government over $20 billion per year.
As the majority of outstanding debt of Greece is held by other member nations, default of Greece resulted in loss to the member countries. Greece’s debt crisis led to instability in euro, the common currency of EU. There are fears of public debt crises spreading to other EU nations. After the fiscal crisis of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain also suffered the similar crisis, though to a lesser extent. To stem the rot, European leaders announced a $1 trillion bailout package in collaboration with IMF. EU Finance ministers pledged to tighten penalties on countries with runaway fiscal deficits. One of the problems facing the euro countries is the disagreement between Greece and the trio of rescuers, EU, IMF and ECB, over the conditions of bail out. The bail-out package will be available subject to the condition that the beneficiary country will have to go for fiscal austerity in terms of reducing fiscal deficit. This could lead to the imposition of additional taxation and curbing corruption and tax evasion. The measures will lead to tje cooling down of industrial growth and increasing of unemployment. Hence, the public at large in Greece are up in arms against the conditions of the second bail-out package. (Excerpted from PNB Monthly Review of Jan 12)

Bothcrises impacted the world economy in no uncertain terms. Both originated from economy related issues. Yet, both are different because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The global economy has witnessed two macro economic crises in the last three years shattering the entire gamut of economic growth parameters across the world. Crisis number one is the banking crisis after the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and crisis number two is the on-going sovereign debt crisis of the European Union. The commonality between the two is that they originated in two major economic super power zones: the first one in USA and the second one in EU and thereafter percolated to other parts of the world impacting the growth forces of the world economy. However, the two are different in nature in as much as the US crisis originated from financial sector fall out popularly known as the sub-prime crisis and the EU sovereign debt crisis originated from fiscal fallout. Much has already been written about the financial sector crisis of US. The Sovereign debt crisis of EU is still like hot potato and therefore more pertinent for a detailed discussion.
The crux of the EU sovereign debt crisis was rooted in the Greek debt crisis. The Greek economy was one of the fastest growing economies in the euro zone from 2000 to 2007; during that period it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country. A strong economy and falling bond yields allowed the government to run large structural deficits. Successive governments for years had been customarily running large deficits to Finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits. Since 1993 the ratio of debt to GDP had remained above 100%. After the introduction of euro in January 2001, Greece was initially able to borrow due to the lower interest rates government bonds commanded. Many member countries including Greece borrowed from the rest of the world, especially from the member nations, huge sums by issuing sovereign securities deliberately keeping yields low. But it failed to repay the coupon and the principal when the securities became due for redemption. To obfuscate the simmering problem from public gaze, it further borrowed issuing fresh securities.
The Greek government bond market relied on foreign investors, with some estimates suggesting that up to 70% of Greek government bonds were held externally. The late-2000s financial crisis that began in 2007 made a severe impact on Greece. Two of the country’s largest industries are tourism and shipping, and both were badly affected by the downturn with revenues falling 15% in 2009. Estimated tax evasion costs the Greek government over $20 billion per year.
As the majority of outstanding debt of Greece is held by other member nations, default of Greece resulted in loss to the member countries. Greece’s debt crisis led to instability in euro, the common currency of EU. There are fears of public debt crises spreading to other EU nations. After the fiscal crisis of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain also suffered the similar crisis, though to a lesser extent. To stem the rot, European leaders announced a $1 trillion bailout package in collaboration with IMF. EU Finance ministers pledged to tighten penalties on countries with runaway fiscal deficits. One of the problems facing the euro countries is the disagreement between Greece and the trio of rescuers, EU, IMF and ECB, over the conditions of bail out. The bail-out package will be available subject to the condition that the beneficiary country will have to go for fiscal austerity in terms of reducing fiscal deficit. This could lead to the imposition of additional taxation and curbing corruption and tax evasion. The measures will lead to tje cooling down of industrial growth and increasing of unemployment. Hence, the public at large in Greece are up in arms against the conditions of the second bail-out package. (Excerpted from PNB Monthly Review of Jan 12)

Why did this crisis which was essentially the Greek debt crisis spread to other countries and become sovereign debt crisis?
(a) Most of these countries that were affected by sovereign debt crisis were the members of Euro Zone.
(b) Most of these countries that were affected by sovereign debt crisis used the common currency Euro.
(c) Most of these countries borrowed from one another and failed in unison when it came to redeeming their bonds they had borrowed against.
(d) It is no longer possible to live in isolation. Although the crisis originated in Greece, it spread to other countries because they were all economically interlinked.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The global economy has witnessed two macro economic crises in the last three years shattering the entire gamut of economic growth parameters across the world. Crisis number one is the banking crisis after the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and crisis number two is the on-going sovereign debt crisis of the European Union. The commonality between the two is that they originated in two major economic super power zones: the first one in USA and the second one in EU and thereafter percolated to other parts of the world impacting the growth forces of the world economy. However, the two are different in nature in as much as the US crisis originated from financial sector fall out popularly known as the sub-prime crisis and the EU sovereign debt crisis originated from fiscal fallout. Much has already been written about the financial sector crisis of US. The Sovereign debt crisis of EU is still like hot potato and therefore more pertinent for a detailed discussion.
The crux of the EU sovereign debt crisis was rooted in the Greek debt crisis. The Greek economy was one of the fastest growing economies in the euro zone from 2000 to 2007; during that period it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country. A strong economy and falling bond yields allowed the government to run large structural deficits. Successive governments for years had been customarily running large deficits to Finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits. Since 1993 the ratio of debt to GDP had remained above 100%. After the introduction of euro in January 2001, Greece was initially able to borrow due to the lower interest rates government bonds commanded. Many member countries including Greece borrowed from the rest of the world, especially from the member nations, huge sums by issuing sovereign securities deliberately keeping yields low. But it failed to repay the coupon and the principal when the securities became due for redemption. To obfuscate the simmering problem from public gaze, it further borrowed issuing fresh securities.
The Greek government bond market relied on foreign investors, with some estimates suggesting that up to 70% of Greek government bonds were held externally. The late-2000s financial crisis that began in 2007 made a severe impact on Greece. Two of the country’s largest industries are tourism and shipping, and both were badly affected by the downturn with revenues falling 15% in 2009. Estimated tax evasion costs the Greek government over $20 billion per year.
As the majority of outstanding debt of Greece is held by other member nations, default of Greece resulted in loss to the member countries. Greece’s debt crisis led to instability in euro, the common currency of EU. There are fears of public debt crises spreading to other EU nations. After the fiscal crisis of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain also suffered the similar crisis, though to a lesser extent. To stem the rot, European leaders announced a $1 trillion bailout package in collaboration with IMF. EU Finance ministers pledged to tighten penalties on countries with runaway fiscal deficits. One of the problems facing the euro countries is the disagreement between Greece and the trio of rescuers, EU, IMF and ECB, over the conditions of bail out. The bail-out package will be available subject to the condition that the beneficiary country will have to go for fiscal austerity in terms of reducing fiscal deficit. This could lead to the imposition of additional taxation and curbing corruption and tax evasion. The measures will lead to tje cooling down of industrial growth and increasing of unemployment. Hence, the public at large in Greece are up in arms against the conditions of the second bail-out package. (Excerpted from PNB Monthly Review of Jan 12)

What, according to the passage, is not an obstacle in the way of a bail-out package?

1. Imposition of additional taxation.
2. Imposition of fiscal austerity.
3. Reducing of fiscal deficit.
4. Curbing of corruption and tax evasion.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The global economy has witnessed two macro economic crises in the last three years shattering the entire gamut of economic growth parameters across the world. Crisis number one is the banking crisis after the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 and crisis number two is the on-going sovereign debt crisis of the European Union. The commonality between the two is that they originated in two major economic super power zones: the first one in USA and the second one in EU and thereafter percolated to other parts of the world impacting the growth forces of the world economy. However, the two are different in nature in as much as the US crisis originated from financial sector fall out popularly known as the sub-prime crisis and the EU sovereign debt crisis originated from fiscal fallout. Much has already been written about the financial sector crisis of US. The Sovereign debt crisis of EU is still like hot potato and therefore more pertinent for a detailed discussion.
The crux of the EU sovereign debt crisis was rooted in the Greek debt crisis. The Greek economy was one of the fastest growing economies in the euro zone from 2000 to 2007; during that period it grew at an annual rate of 4.2% as foreign capital flooded the country. A strong economy and falling bond yields allowed the government to run large structural deficits. Successive governments for years had been customarily running large deficits to Finance public sector jobs, pensions, and other social benefits. Since 1993 the ratio of debt to GDP had remained above 100%. After the introduction of euro in January 2001, Greece was initially able to borrow due to the lower interest rates government bonds commanded. Many member countries including Greece borrowed from the rest of the world, especially from the member nations, huge sums by issuing sovereign securities deliberately keeping yields low. But it failed to repay the coupon and the principal when the securities became due for redemption. To obfuscate the simmering problem from public gaze, it further borrowed issuing fresh securities.
The Greek government bond market relied on foreign investors, with some estimates suggesting that up to 70% of Greek government bonds were held externally. The late-2000s financial crisis that began in 2007 made a severe impact on Greece. Two of the country’s largest industries are tourism and shipping, and both were badly affected by the downturn with revenues falling 15% in 2009. Estimated tax evasion costs the Greek government over $20 billion per year.
As the majority of outstanding debt of Greece is held by other member nations, default of Greece resulted in loss to the member countries. Greece’s debt crisis led to instability in euro, the common currency of EU. There are fears of public debt crises spreading to other EU nations. After the fiscal crisis of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain also suffered the similar crisis, though to a lesser extent. To stem the rot, European leaders announced a $1 trillion bailout package in collaboration with IMF. EU Finance ministers pledged to tighten penalties on countries with runaway fiscal deficits. One of the problems facing the euro countries is the disagreement between Greece and the trio of rescuers, EU, IMF and ECB, over the conditions of bail out. The bail-out package will be available subject to the condition that the beneficiary country will have to go for fiscal austerity in terms of reducing fiscal deficit. This could lead to the imposition of additional taxation and curbing corruption and tax evasion. The measures will lead to tje cooling down of industrial growth and increasing of unemployment. Hence, the public at large in Greece are up in arms against the conditions of the second bail-out package. (Excerpted from PNB Monthly Review of Jan 12)

The author has described it as an approach derived from the linguistic theory of Chomsky. It is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

For teachers of a second language, the role of grammar instruction in the classroom has been a perennial subject of debate and has undergone many changes over the years. For example, the once well-respected traditional methods that relied on extensive drilling and memorization of grammar evoked a backlash in the 1970s, which resulted in new methods that excluded grammar instruction in favour of ‘natural’ communication in the classroom. Nevertheless, the topic of grammar remained a live issue, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, research in the classroom reported positive results for grammar instruction. Even so, the communicative methods had an enduring effect, and the traditional methods of teaching grammar did not return; instead, techniques were developed whereby students would be able to ‘notice’ grammar, often spontaneously in the course of a communicative lesson, and especially if the grammatical problem impeded comprehension. In this way, learners would notice and learn the pattern of grammatical rules for themselves. This new way of looking at grammar instruction has come to be known as language awareness, among other designations. This article will discuss the background and rationale of language awareness, and will introduce a few of the techniques that teachers can use to help students discover grammatical relationships and improve their learning of English. 
Traditional grammar instruction, as it was commonly called, was criticised for its long-winded teacher explanations, its drills and drudgery, and its boring and banal exercises. In the 1970s, new teaching methods appeared that replaced grammar exercises with meaningful communicative environments. In general, the goal was to mirror the way a person learned his or her first language, an approach that was derived from the linguistic theory of Chomsky (1965), who pointed out that humans are endowed with a language acquisition device that enables them to acquire whatever language they are exposed to. Accordingly, our ‘organ of language’ extracts the rules of the target language from the data of performance, and this innate schema comprises ‘linguistic universities’ which are part of our generic inheritance.
Chomsky’s theories revolutionized the field of linguistics, and had a dramatic impact on language teaching as well. The basic assumption underpinning the communicative approach is that language is made in the mind and is internal, a process that generates what Chomsky (1986) refers to as I-language. This suggests that language cannot be acquired by putting learners through a series of linguistic hoops, which is the approach found in the traditional grammar book, and what Chomsky calls E-language, language external to the learner. Based on these theories, ‘nativists’ argued against explicit grammatical instruction in favour of the naturalistic discovery of the target language’s rule system. In the early 1980s, Krashen (1981) proclaimed that exposure to comprehensible input in a stress-free environment was the primary condition for successful second language acquisition. However, at the same time this was being propagated, a number of researchers were investigating on the effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Long (1983), for instance, in an extensive review of the empirical research, found that certain types of instruction did make a significant difference and hence one could no longer accept the nativist argument that the effects of grammar teaching appear to be peripheral and fragile.

According to the author, the I-language is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

For teachers of a second language, the role of grammar instruction in the classroom has been a perennial subject of debate and has undergone many changes over the years. For example, the once well-respected traditional methods that relied on extensive drilling and memorization of grammar evoked a backlash in the 1970s, which resulted in new methods that excluded grammar instruction in favour of ‘natural’ communication in the classroom. Nevertheless, the topic of grammar remained a live issue, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, research in the classroom reported positive results for grammar instruction. Even so, the communicative methods had an enduring effect, and the traditional methods of teaching grammar did not return; instead, techniques were developed whereby students would be able to ‘notice’ grammar, often spontaneously in the course of a communicative lesson, and especially if the grammatical problem impeded comprehension. In this way, learners would notice and learn the pattern of grammatical rules for themselves. This new way of looking at grammar instruction has come to be known as language awareness, among other designations. This article will discuss the background and rationale of language awareness, and will introduce a few of the techniques that teachers can use to help students discover grammatical relationships and improve their learning of English. 
Traditional grammar instruction, as it was commonly called, was criticised for its long-winded teacher explanations, its drills and drudgery, and its boring and banal exercises. In the 1970s, new teaching methods appeared that replaced grammar exercises with meaningful communicative environments. In general, the goal was to mirror the way a person learned his or her first language, an approach that was derived from the linguistic theory of Chomsky (1965), who pointed out that humans are endowed with a language acquisition device that enables them to acquire whatever language they are exposed to. Accordingly, our ‘organ of language’ extracts the rules of the target language from the data of performance, and this innate schema comprises ‘linguistic universities’ which are part of our generic inheritance.
Chomsky’s theories revolutionized the field of linguistics, and had a dramatic impact on language teaching as well. The basic assumption underpinning the communicative approach is that language is made in the mind and is internal, a process that generates what Chomsky (1986) refers to as I-language. This suggests that language cannot be acquired by putting learners through a series of linguistic hoops, which is the approach found in the traditional grammar book, and what Chomsky calls E-language, language external to the learner. Based on these theories, ‘nativists’ argued against explicit grammatical instruction in favour of the naturalistic discovery of the target language’s rule system. In the early 1980s, Krashen (1981) proclaimed that exposure to comprehensible input in a stress-free environment was the primary condition for successful second language acquisition. However, at the same time this was being propagated, a number of researchers were investigating on the effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Long (1983), for instance, in an extensive review of the empirical research, found that certain types of instruction did make a significant difference and hence one could no longer accept the nativist argument that the effects of grammar teaching appear to be peripheral and fragile.

According to the author, the language awareness is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

For teachers of a second language, the role of grammar instruction in the classroom has been a perennial subject of debate and has undergone many changes over the years. For example, the once well-respected traditional methods that relied on extensive drilling and memorization of grammar evoked a backlash in the 1970s, which resulted in new methods that excluded grammar instruction in favour of ‘natural’ communication in the classroom. Nevertheless, the topic of grammar remained a live issue, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, research in the classroom reported positive results for grammar instruction. Even so, the communicative methods had an enduring effect, and the traditional methods of teaching grammar did not return; instead, techniques were developed whereby students would be able to ‘notice’ grammar, often spontaneously in the course of a communicative lesson, and especially if the grammatical problem impeded comprehension. In this way, learners would notice and learn the pattern of grammatical rules for themselves. This new way of looking at grammar instruction has come to be known as language awareness, among other designations. This article will discuss the background and rationale of language awareness, and will introduce a few of the techniques that teachers can use to help students discover grammatical relationships and improve their learning of English. 
Traditional grammar instruction, as it was commonly called, was criticised for its long-winded teacher explanations, its drills and drudgery, and its boring and banal exercises. In the 1970s, new teaching methods appeared that replaced grammar exercises with meaningful communicative environments. In general, the goal was to mirror the way a person learned his or her first language, an approach that was derived from the linguistic theory of Chomsky (1965), who pointed out that humans are endowed with a language acquisition device that enables them to acquire whatever language they are exposed to. Accordingly, our ‘organ of language’ extracts the rules of the target language from the data of performance, and this innate schema comprises ‘linguistic universities’ which are part of our generic inheritance.
Chomsky’s theories revolutionized the field of linguistics, and had a dramatic impact on language teaching as well. The basic assumption underpinning the communicative approach is that language is made in the mind and is internal, a process that generates what Chomsky (1986) refers to as I-language. This suggests that language cannot be acquired by putting learners through a series of linguistic hoops, which is the approach found in the traditional grammar book, and what Chomsky calls E-language, language external to the learner. Based on these theories, ‘nativists’ argued against explicit grammatical instruction in favour of the naturalistic discovery of the target language’s rule system. In the early 1980s, Krashen (1981) proclaimed that exposure to comprehensible input in a stress-free environment was the primary condition for successful second language acquisition. However, at the same time this was being propagated, a number of researchers were investigating on the effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Long (1983), for instance, in an extensive review of the empirical research, found that certain types of instruction did make a significant difference and hence one could no longer accept the nativist argument that the effects of grammar teaching appear to be peripheral and fragile.

The approach of the writer of this passage appears to be to

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

For teachers of a second language, the role of grammar instruction in the classroom has been a perennial subject of debate and has undergone many changes over the years. For example, the once well-respected traditional methods that relied on extensive drilling and memorization of grammar evoked a backlash in the 1970s, which resulted in new methods that excluded grammar instruction in favour of ‘natural’ communication in the classroom. Nevertheless, the topic of grammar remained a live issue, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, research in the classroom reported positive results for grammar instruction. Even so, the communicative methods had an enduring effect, and the traditional methods of teaching grammar did not return; instead, techniques were developed whereby students would be able to ‘notice’ grammar, often spontaneously in the course of a communicative lesson, and especially if the grammatical problem impeded comprehension. In this way, learners would notice and learn the pattern of grammatical rules for themselves. This new way of looking at grammar instruction has come to be known as language awareness, among other designations. This article will discuss the background and rationale of language awareness, and will introduce a few of the techniques that teachers can use to help students discover grammatical relationships and improve their learning of English. 
Traditional grammar instruction, as it was commonly called, was criticised for its long-winded teacher explanations, its drills and drudgery, and its boring and banal exercises. In the 1970s, new teaching methods appeared that replaced grammar exercises with meaningful communicative environments. In general, the goal was to mirror the way a person learned his or her first language, an approach that was derived from the linguistic theory of Chomsky (1965), who pointed out that humans are endowed with a language acquisition device that enables them to acquire whatever language they are exposed to. Accordingly, our ‘organ of language’ extracts the rules of the target language from the data of performance, and this innate schema comprises ‘linguistic universities’ which are part of our generic inheritance.
Chomsky’s theories revolutionized the field of linguistics, and had a dramatic impact on language teaching as well. The basic assumption underpinning the communicative approach is that language is made in the mind and is internal, a process that generates what Chomsky (1986) refers to as I-language. This suggests that language cannot be acquired by putting learners through a series of linguistic hoops, which is the approach found in the traditional grammar book, and what Chomsky calls E-language, language external to the learner. Based on these theories, ‘nativists’ argued against explicit grammatical instruction in favour of the naturalistic discovery of the target language’s rule system. In the early 1980s, Krashen (1981) proclaimed that exposure to comprehensible input in a stress-free environment was the primary condition for successful second language acquisition. However, at the same time this was being propagated, a number of researchers were investigating on the effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Long (1983), for instance, in an extensive review of the empirical research, found that certain types of instruction did make a significant difference and hence one could no longer accept the nativist argument that the effects of grammar teaching appear to be peripheral and fragile.

What the author wittingly or unwittingly concludes is that

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

For teachers of a second language, the role of grammar instruction in the classroom has been a perennial subject of debate and has undergone many changes over the years. For example, the once well-respected traditional methods that relied on extensive drilling and memorization of grammar evoked a backlash in the 1970s, which resulted in new methods that excluded grammar instruction in favour of ‘natural’ communication in the classroom. Nevertheless, the topic of grammar remained a live issue, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s, research in the classroom reported positive results for grammar instruction. Even so, the communicative methods had an enduring effect, and the traditional methods of teaching grammar did not return; instead, techniques were developed whereby students would be able to ‘notice’ grammar, often spontaneously in the course of a communicative lesson, and especially if the grammatical problem impeded comprehension. In this way, learners would notice and learn the pattern of grammatical rules for themselves. This new way of looking at grammar instruction has come to be known as language awareness, among other designations. This article will discuss the background and rationale of language awareness, and will introduce a few of the techniques that teachers can use to help students discover grammatical relationships and improve their learning of English. 
Traditional grammar instruction, as it was commonly called, was criticised for its long-winded teacher explanations, its drills and drudgery, and its boring and banal exercises. In the 1970s, new teaching methods appeared that replaced grammar exercises with meaningful communicative environments. In general, the goal was to mirror the way a person learned his or her first language, an approach that was derived from the linguistic theory of Chomsky (1965), who pointed out that humans are endowed with a language acquisition device that enables them to acquire whatever language they are exposed to. Accordingly, our ‘organ of language’ extracts the rules of the target language from the data of performance, and this innate schema comprises ‘linguistic universities’ which are part of our generic inheritance.
Chomsky’s theories revolutionized the field of linguistics, and had a dramatic impact on language teaching as well. The basic assumption underpinning the communicative approach is that language is made in the mind and is internal, a process that generates what Chomsky (1986) refers to as I-language. This suggests that language cannot be acquired by putting learners through a series of linguistic hoops, which is the approach found in the traditional grammar book, and what Chomsky calls E-language, language external to the learner. Based on these theories, ‘nativists’ argued against explicit grammatical instruction in favour of the naturalistic discovery of the target language’s rule system. In the early 1980s, Krashen (1981) proclaimed that exposure to comprehensible input in a stress-free environment was the primary condition for successful second language acquisition. However, at the same time this was being propagated, a number of researchers were investigating on the effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Long (1983), for instance, in an extensive review of the empirical research, found that certain types of instruction did make a significant difference and hence one could no longer accept the nativist argument that the effects of grammar teaching appear to be peripheral and fragile.