Reading Comprehension - 4

How did the end of feudal system start?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

The rise of a money economy sounded the death knell of feudalism. “Feudal customs and practices completely decayed by 1500. Personal unfreedom and the status of villeinage were eradicated by 1640.” Land, the basis of power in the medieval period, lost its importance. It took centuries for this process to reach completion. But the seeds were sown with the birth of money. With the growth of a money economy, the feudal lords found the serf labour less competent than free labor. So they commuted the old feudal dues into fixed money payments. Lands were leased to free peasants in return for rent. Serfdom lost its foundations and gave way to peasant proprietorship. The peasantry achieved a degree of freedom and prosperity that it had not known in the last thousand years. The lessening of the old seigniorial relations between lord and the cultivator coupled with the continued disintegration of the manorial system further spurred the social position of the individual citizen.
The decline of feudalism opened the doors for agricultural development. In the feudal period, agricultural production was aimed only to meet the needs of the lord and his manor. The profit motive released by the money economy transformed feudal subsistence production into commercial agriculture. The new commercial agriculture helped change the unreflecting peasant of the 13th century into an individualistic and enterprising farmer. The freedom and emergence of individual as a result of the breakdown of feudalism and shift from a subsistence economy to a market economy prepared the grounds for the growth of English democracy.
Waves of inflation that swept through England during the 15th century provided additional impetus for the new agrarian economy. The rise in population and increase in the flow of silver and gold from America and Spain were important causes for inflation during this period. The price rise stimulated the commercial exploitation of land. It shattered the financial stability of the Crown, though the extent of the damage to the Crown only became fully apparent two centuries later. By depressing royal income deriving from fixed land rents and taxes and by increasing royal expenditure, the price rise made the king increasingly dependent on the Parliament for finance. The loss of the Crown’s financial independence was one of the most important reasons for the growth of political democracy. The price rise redistributed national income among the rising class of gentry and merchants. This redistribution of national wealth undermined the medieval concentration of wealth that had contributed to the suppression and serfdom of peasants.
The economic changes rendered possible by the forces of inflation and market economy brought to the forefront new classes in English society – gentry and yeomen. Along with the merchant class, the gentry and yeomen gradually replaced the old baronial families in the political and social life. This new landed aristocracy based more on wealth than on birth, became the nucleus for the governing class in the counties. Backed by the power of money, these classes gained the power to voice their political and religious disagreements with the government.

What was the consequence of the war?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Making analogies with Darwinian biology, which hit the world like a cloudburst in 1859, he tried to show that in the same way that nature worked automatically to select her “elite” and thus accomplish the “Survival of the Fittest,” so society could approach perfection to the extent that free play was allowed its “elite.” His statement: “There cannot be more good than that of letting social progress go on unhindered; an immensity of mischief may be done in . . . the artificial preservation of those least able to care for themselves,” sets out his position clearly. He defended cupidity (that great capitalist virtue) as part of the universal struggle for existence. The possession of wealth, to him, was the hallmark of the fittest, to be worshipped like the Holy Grail.
Success, sans the saving grace of stewardship, alone was considered of account. Calvinism, the doctrine of thrift, hard work, etc., was here revealed in all its nakedness shorn of its “conscience.” No wonder the developing capitalists of the “new” world hailed these findings as those of “science.” Of his disciples in the U.S.A., one of the most prominent was young Andrew Carnegie. This Scotch Presbyterian very early lost his faith and yet could not find justification for his secular calling. “Man must have an idol,” he held in 1868. “This amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry — no idol more debasing than the worship of money . . . To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery.” He nonetheless confessed: “I was determined to make a fortune . . . and nothing could be allowed to interfere with my business career.” Spencer’s pseudo-science provided Carnegie with the rationalisation for justifying his outlook. His (Carnegie’s) autobiography contains the following: “ . . . That light came as a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘All is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.” So, with his newfound religion, he laid the foundation for U. S. steel production — and the brutalities of Homestead. “Survival of Fittest” became linked with this “almost maniacal appetite for wealth prevalent in the United States,” to quote the poet, Whitman. Carnegie was but one of a vast number (almost all) of the businessmen of the time to take Spencer’s “science” to their bourgeois bosoms.
These were the years following the close of the Civil War; THE PROCLAMATION OF FREEDOM for the chattel slaves of the South; the passing of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. These, the days of “binding up the nation’s wounds;” of the “Reconstruction,” when the “freed” slaves found themselves more insecure, more enslaved than they were on the plantations and together with the “poor white trash” wandered aimlessly throughout the land in search of sustenance. The days of the Spenceriansin business who, recognising the value of political power, were not content to delegate that power to sycophants and stooges but who, directly, as members of the House and Senate were more numerous (as such) than at any other period in U. S. history. Later, through brainwashing techniques and promises of pelf, they produced and relied upon corrupt and mendacious mouthpieces.
In 1886, Senator George Hearst, father of William Randolph, confessed to his colleagues: “I do not know much about books; I have not read very much, but I have travelled a good deal and observed men and things and I have made up my mind after all my experiences that the members of the Senate are the Survivors of the Fittest.” (Emph. added.)
These were the days of expanding capital. The year after the war ended the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, envisaging the consequences of the war boom, put it this way:
“There is an increasing tendency in our capital to move in larger masses than formerly. Small business firms compete at more disadvantage with richer houses, and are gradually being absorbed into them.”

What according to the passage made the king increasingly dependent on the Parliament for finance?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

The rise of a money economy sounded the death knell of feudalism. “Feudal customs and practices completely decayed by 1500. Personal unfreedom and the status of villeinage were eradicated by 1640.” Land, the basis of power in the medieval period, lost its importance. It took centuries for this process to reach completion. But the seeds were sown with the birth of money. With the growth of a money economy, the feudal lords found the serf labour less competent than free labor. So they commuted the old feudal dues into fixed money payments. Lands were leased to free peasants in return for rent. Serfdom lost its foundations and gave way to peasant proprietorship. The peasantry achieved a degree of freedom and prosperity that it had not known in the last thousand years. The lessening of the old seigniorial relations between lord and the cultivator coupled with the continued disintegration of the manorial system further spurred the social position of the individual citizen.
The decline of feudalism opened the doors for agricultural development. In the feudal period, agricultural production was aimed only to meet the needs of the lord and his manor. The profit motive released by the money economy transformed feudal subsistence production into commercial agriculture. The new commercial agriculture helped change the unreflecting peasant of the 13th century into an individualistic and enterprising farmer. The freedom and emergence of individual as a result of the breakdown of feudalism and shift from a subsistence economy to a market economy prepared the grounds for the growth of English democracy.
Waves of inflation that swept through England during the 15th century provided additional impetus for the new agrarian economy. The rise in population and increase in the flow of silver and gold from America and Spain were important causes for inflation during this period. The price rise stimulated the commercial exploitation of land. It shattered the financial stability of the Crown, though the extent of the damage to the Crown only became fully apparent two centuries later. By depressing royal income deriving from fixed land rents and taxes and by increasing royal expenditure, the price rise made the king increasingly dependent on the Parliament for finance. The loss of the Crown’s financial independence was one of the most important reasons for the growth of political democracy. The price rise redistributed national income among the rising class of gentry and merchants. This redistribution of national wealth undermined the medieval concentration of wealth that had contributed to the suppression and serfdom of peasants.
The economic changes rendered possible by the forces of inflation and market economy brought to the forefront new classes in English society – gentry and yeomen. Along with the merchant class, the gentry and yeomen gradually replaced the old baronial families in the political and social life. This new landed aristocracy based more on wealth than on birth, became the nucleus for the governing class in the counties. Backed by the power of money, these classes gained the power to voice their political and religious disagreements with the government.

According to the author justice can be represented as?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

It might seem at first sight that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, and that there is no reason to distinguish them, or to say that one is more fundamental than the other. I think this impression is mistaken. In this paper I wish to show that the fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness; and I wish to offer an analysis of the concept of justice from this point of view. To bring out the force of this claim, and the analysis based upon it, I shall then argue that it is this aspect of justice for which utilitarianism, in its classical form, is unable to account, but which is expressed, even if misleadingly, by the idea of the social contract.
To start with I shall develop a particular conception of justice by stating and commenting upon two principles which specify it, and by considering the circumstances and conditions under which they may be thought to arise. The principles defining this conception, and the conception itself, are, of course, familiar. It may be possible, however, by using the notion of fairness as a framework, to assemble and to look at them in a new way. Before stating this conception, however, the following preliminary matters should be kept in mind. Throughout I consider justice only as a virtue of social institutions, or what I shall call practices. The principles of justice are regarded as formulating restrictions as to how practices may define positions and offices, and assign thereto powers and liabilities, rights and duties. Justice as a virtue of particular actions or of persons I do not take up at all. It is important to distinguish these various subjects of justice, since the meaning of the concept varies according to whether it is applied to practices, particular actions, or persons. These meanings are, indeed, connected, but they are not identical. I shall confine my discussion to the sense of justice as applied to practices, since this sense is the basic one. Once it is understood, the other senses should go quite easily.
Justice is to be understood in its customary sense as representing but one of the many virtues of social institutions, for these may be antiquated, inefficient, degrading, or any number of other things, without being unjust. Justice is not to be confused with an all inclusive vision of a good society; it is only one part of any such conception. It is important, for example, to distinguish that sense of equality which is an aspect of the concept of justice from that sense of equality which belongs to a more comprehensive social ideal. There may well be inequalities which one concedes are just, or at least not unjust, but which, nevertheless, one wishes, on other grounds, to do away with. I shall focus attention, then, on the usual sense of justice in which it is essentially the elimination of arbitrary distinctions and the establishment, within the structure of a practice, of a proper balance between competing claims. Finally, there is no need to consider the principles discussed below as the principles of justice. For the moment it is sufficient that they are typical of a family of principles normally associated with the concept of justice. The way in which the principles of this family resemble one another, as shown by the background against which they may be thought to arise, will be made clear by the whole of the subsequent argument.

What are ‘practices’ as mentioned in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

It might seem at first sight that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, and that there is no reason to distinguish them, or to say that one is more fundamental than the other. I think this impression is mistaken. In this paper I wish to show that the fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness; and I wish to offer an analysis of the concept of justice from this point of view. To bring out the force of this claim, and the analysis based upon it, I shall then argue that it is this aspect of justice for which utilitarianism, in its classical form, is unable to account, but which is expressed, even if misleadingly, by the idea of the social contract.
To start with I shall develop a particular conception of justice by stating and commenting upon two principles which specify it, and by considering the circumstances and conditions under which they may be thought to arise. The principles defining this conception, and the conception itself, are, of course, familiar. It may be possible, however, by using the notion of fairness as a framework, to assemble and to look at them in a new way. Before stating this conception, however, the following preliminary matters should be kept in mind. Throughout I consider justice only as a virtue of social institutions, or what I shall call practices. The principles of justice are regarded as formulating restrictions as to how practices may define positions and offices, and assign thereto powers and liabilities, rights and duties. Justice as a virtue of particular actions or of persons I do not take up at all. It is important to distinguish these various subjects of justice, since the meaning of the concept varies according to whether it is applied to practices, particular actions, or persons. These meanings are, indeed, connected, but they are not identical. I shall confine my discussion to the sense of justice as applied to practices, since this sense is the basic one. Once it is understood, the other senses should go quite easily.
Justice is to be understood in its customary sense as representing but one of the many virtues of social institutions, for these may be antiquated, inefficient, degrading, or any number of other things, without being unjust. Justice is not to be confused with an all inclusive vision of a good society; it is only one part of any such conception. It is important, for example, to distinguish that sense of equality which is an aspect of the concept of justice from that sense of equality which belongs to a more comprehensive social ideal. There may well be inequalities which one concedes are just, or at least not unjust, but which, nevertheless, one wishes, on other grounds, to do away with. I shall focus attention, then, on the usual sense of justice in which it is essentially the elimination of arbitrary distinctions and the establishment, within the structure of a practice, of a proper balance between competing claims. Finally, there is no need to consider the principles discussed below as the principles of justice. For the moment it is sufficient that they are typical of a family of principles normally associated with the concept of justice. The way in which the principles of this family resemble one another, as shown by the background against which they may be thought to arise, will be made clear by the whole of the subsequent argument.

Which of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

In nearly all human populations a majority of individuals can taste the artificially synthesized chemical phenylthiocarbonide (PTC). However, the percentage varies dramatically – from as low as 60% in India to as high as 95% in Africa. That this polymorphism is observed in non - human primates as well indicates a long evolutionary history which although obviously not acting on PTC, might reflect evolutionary selection for taste discrimination of other, more significant bitter substances, such as certain toxic plants. A somewhat more puzzling human polymorphism is the genetic variability in earwax, or cerumen which is observed in two varieties. Among European populations 90% of individuals have a sticky yellow variety rather than a dry, gray one, whereas in northern China these numbers are approximately the reverse. Perhaps like PTC variability, cerumen is an incidental expression of something more adaptively significant. Indeed, the observed relationship between cerumen and odorous bodily secretions denote that during the course of human evolution, genes affecting body secretions, including cerumen, came under selective influence.

What was the direction according to Whitman in which Carnegie took Spencerianism?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Making analogies with Darwinian biology, which hit the world like a cloudburst in 1859, he tried to show that in the same way that nature worked automatically to select her “elite” and thus accomplish the “Survival of the Fittest,” so society could approach perfection to the extent that free play was allowed its “elite.” His statement: “There cannot be more good than that of letting social progress go on unhindered; an immensity of mischief may be done in . . . the artificial preservation of those least able to care for themselves,” sets out his position clearly. He defended cupidity (that great capitalist virtue) as part of the universal struggle for existence. The possession of wealth, to him, was the hallmark of the fittest, to be worshipped like the Holy Grail.
Success, sans the saving grace of stewardship, alone was considered of account. Calvinism, the doctrine of thrift, hard work, etc., was here revealed in all its nakedness shorn of its “conscience.” No wonder the developing capitalists of the “new” world hailed these findings as those of “science.” Of his disciples in the U.S.A., one of the most prominent was young Andrew Carnegie. This Scotch Presbyterian very early lost his faith and yet could not find justification for his secular calling. “Man must have an idol,” he held in 1868. “This amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry — no idol more debasing than the worship of money . . . To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery.” He nonetheless confessed: “I was determined to make a fortune . . . and nothing could be allowed to interfere with my business career.” Spencer’s pseudo-science provided Carnegie with the rationalisation for justifying his outlook. His (Carnegie’s) autobiography contains the following: “ . . . That light came as a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘All is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.” So, with his newfound religion, he laid the foundation for U. S. steel production — and the brutalities of Homestead. “Survival of Fittest” became linked with this “almost maniacal appetite for wealth prevalent in the United States,” to quote the poet, Whitman. Carnegie was but one of a vast number (almost all) of the businessmen of the time to take Spencer’s “science” to their bourgeois bosoms.
These were the years following the close of the Civil War; THE PROCLAMATION OF FREEDOM for the chattel slaves of the South; the passing of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. These, the days of “binding up the nation’s wounds;” of the “Reconstruction,” when the “freed” slaves found themselves more insecure, more enslaved than they were on the plantations and together with the “poor white trash” wandered aimlessly throughout the land in search of sustenance. The days of the Spenceriansin business who, recognising the value of political power, were not content to delegate that power to sycophants and stooges but who, directly, as members of the House and Senate were more numerous (as such) than at any other period in U. S. history. Later, through brainwashing techniques and promises of pelf, they produced and relied upon corrupt and mendacious mouthpieces.
In 1886, Senator George Hearst, father of William Randolph, confessed to his colleagues: “I do not know much about books; I have not read very much, but I have travelled a good deal and observed men and things and I have made up my mind after all my experiences that the members of the Senate are the Survivors of the Fittest.” (Emph. added.)
These were the days of expanding capital. The year after the war ended the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, envisaging the consequences of the war boom, put it this way:
“There is an increasing tendency in our capital to move in larger masses than formerly. Small business firms compete at more disadvantage with richer houses, and are gradually being absorbed into them.”

Which of the following provides the most reasonable explanation for the assertion in the first paragraph that evolutionary history “obviously” did not act on PTC?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

In nearly all human populations a majority of individuals can taste the artificially synthesized chemical phenylthiocarbonide (PTC). However, the percentage varies dramatically – from as low as 60% in India to as high as 95% in Africa. That this polymorphism is observed in non - human primates as well indicates a long evolutionary history which although obviously not acting on PTC, might reflect evolutionary selection for taste discrimination of other, more significant bitter substances, such as certain toxic plants. A somewhat more puzzling human polymorphism is the genetic variability in earwax, or cerumen which is observed in two varieties. Among European populations 90% of individuals have a sticky yellow variety rather than a dry, gray one, whereas in northern China these numbers are approximately the reverse. Perhaps like PTC variability, cerumen is an incidental expression of something more adaptively significant. Indeed, the observed relationship between cerumen and odorous bodily secretions denote that during the course of human evolution, genes affecting body secretions, including cerumen, came under selective influence.

What kinds of inputs are mentioned in the passage?
(i) In the form of ability
(ii) In the form of productivity
(iii) In the form of talent

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues. These principles all appeal to the notion of just desserts, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity, punished for their transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously. According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products...either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society. In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there are profits of $100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal initial distribution may not result in an equal outcome.
A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal outcome in which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more money, and richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticised because it does not recognise differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real needs and manifested needs.
Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own sake but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal. For example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members.

What kind of result is professed by the principle of need?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues. These principles all appeal to the notion of just desserts, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity, punished for their transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously. According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products...either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society. In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there are profits of $100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal initial distribution may not result in an equal outcome.
A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal outcome in which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more money, and richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticised because it does not recognise differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real needs and manifested needs.
Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own sake but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal. For example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members.

The ‘survival of the fittest’ was used as an analogy to which individual’s work?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Making analogies with Darwinian biology, which hit the world like a cloudburst in 1859, he tried to show that in the same way that nature worked automatically to select her “elite” and thus accomplish the “Survival of the Fittest,” so society could approach perfection to the extent that free play was allowed its “elite.” His statement: “There cannot be more good than that of letting social progress go on unhindered; an immensity of mischief may be done in . . . the artificial preservation of those least able to care for themselves,” sets out his position clearly. He defended cupidity (that great capitalist virtue) as part of the universal struggle for existence. The possession of wealth, to him, was the hallmark of the fittest, to be worshipped like the Holy Grail.
Success, sans the saving grace of stewardship, alone was considered of account. Calvinism, the doctrine of thrift, hard work, etc., was here revealed in all its nakedness shorn of its “conscience.” No wonder the developing capitalists of the “new” world hailed these findings as those of “science.” Of his disciples in the U.S.A., one of the most prominent was young Andrew Carnegie. This Scotch Presbyterian very early lost his faith and yet could not find justification for his secular calling. “Man must have an idol,” he held in 1868. “This amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry — no idol more debasing than the worship of money . . . To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery.” He nonetheless confessed: “I was determined to make a fortune . . . and nothing could be allowed to interfere with my business career.” Spencer’s pseudo-science provided Carnegie with the rationalisation for justifying his outlook. His (Carnegie’s) autobiography contains the following: “ . . . That light came as a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘All is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.” So, with his newfound religion, he laid the foundation for U. S. steel production — and the brutalities of Homestead. “Survival of Fittest” became linked with this “almost maniacal appetite for wealth prevalent in the United States,” to quote the poet, Whitman. Carnegie was but one of a vast number (almost all) of the businessmen of the time to take Spencer’s “science” to their bourgeois bosoms.
These were the years following the close of the Civil War; THE PROCLAMATION OF FREEDOM for the chattel slaves of the South; the passing of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. These, the days of “binding up the nation’s wounds;” of the “Reconstruction,” when the “freed” slaves found themselves more insecure, more enslaved than they were on the plantations and together with the “poor white trash” wandered aimlessly throughout the land in search of sustenance. The days of the Spenceriansin business who, recognising the value of political power, were not content to delegate that power to sycophants and stooges but who, directly, as members of the House and Senate were more numerous (as such) than at any other period in U. S. history. Later, through brainwashing techniques and promises of pelf, they produced and relied upon corrupt and mendacious mouthpieces.
In 1886, Senator George Hearst, father of William Randolph, confessed to his colleagues: “I do not know much about books; I have not read very much, but I have travelled a good deal and observed men and things and I have made up my mind after all my experiences that the members of the Senate are the Survivors of the Fittest.” (Emph. added.)
These were the days of expanding capital. The year after the war ended the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, envisaging the consequences of the war boom, put it this way:
“There is an increasing tendency in our capital to move in larger masses than formerly. Small business firms compete at more disadvantage with richer houses, and are gradually being absorbed into them.”

According to the author, are justice and fairness the same thing?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

It might seem at first sight that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, and that there is no reason to distinguish them, or to say that one is more fundamental than the other. I think this impression is mistaken. In this paper I wish to show that the fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness; and I wish to offer an analysis of the concept of justice from this point of view. To bring out the force of this claim, and the analysis based upon it, I shall then argue that it is this aspect of justice for which utilitarianism, in its classical form, is unable to account, but which is expressed, even if misleadingly, by the idea of the social contract.
To start with I shall develop a particular conception of justice by stating and commenting upon two principles which specify it, and by considering the circumstances and conditions under which they may be thought to arise. The principles defining this conception, and the conception itself, are, of course, familiar. It may be possible, however, by using the notion of fairness as a framework, to assemble and to look at them in a new way. Before stating this conception, however, the following preliminary matters should be kept in mind. Throughout I consider justice only as a virtue of social institutions, or what I shall call practices. The principles of justice are regarded as formulating restrictions as to how practices may define positions and offices, and assign thereto powers and liabilities, rights and duties. Justice as a virtue of particular actions or of persons I do not take up at all. It is important to distinguish these various subjects of justice, since the meaning of the concept varies according to whether it is applied to practices, particular actions, or persons. These meanings are, indeed, connected, but they are not identical. I shall confine my discussion to the sense of justice as applied to practices, since this sense is the basic one. Once it is understood, the other senses should go quite easily.
Justice is to be understood in its customary sense as representing but one of the many virtues of social institutions, for these may be antiquated, inefficient, degrading, or any number of other things, without being unjust. Justice is not to be confused with an all inclusive vision of a good society; it is only one part of any such conception. It is important, for example, to distinguish that sense of equality which is an aspect of the concept of justice from that sense of equality which belongs to a more comprehensive social ideal. There may well be inequalities which one concedes are just, or at least not unjust, but which, nevertheless, one wishes, on other grounds, to do away with. I shall focus attention, then, on the usual sense of justice in which it is essentially the elimination of arbitrary distinctions and the establishment, within the structure of a practice, of a proper balance between competing claims. Finally, there is no need to consider the principles discussed below as the principles of justice. For the moment it is sufficient that they are typical of a family of principles normally associated with the concept of justice. The way in which the principles of this family resemble one another, as shown by the background against which they may be thought to arise, will be made clear by the whole of the subsequent argument.

It can be inferred from the passage that human populations vary considerably in their

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

In nearly all human populations a majority of individuals can taste the artificially synthesized chemical phenylthiocarbonide (PTC). However, the percentage varies dramatically – from as low as 60% in India to as high as 95% in Africa. That this polymorphism is observed in non - human primates as well indicates a long evolutionary history which although obviously not acting on PTC, might reflect evolutionary selection for taste discrimination of other, more significant bitter substances, such as certain toxic plants. A somewhat more puzzling human polymorphism is the genetic variability in earwax, or cerumen which is observed in two varieties. Among European populations 90% of individuals have a sticky yellow variety rather than a dry, gray one, whereas in northern China these numbers are approximately the reverse. Perhaps like PTC variability, cerumen is an incidental expression of something more adaptively significant. Indeed, the observed relationship between cerumen and odorous bodily secretions denote that during the course of human evolution, genes affecting body secretions, including cerumen, came under selective influence.

What provided the push for agrarian economy in England?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

The rise of a money economy sounded the death knell of feudalism. “Feudal customs and practices completely decayed by 1500. Personal unfreedom and the status of villeinage were eradicated by 1640.” Land, the basis of power in the medieval period, lost its importance. It took centuries for this process to reach completion. But the seeds were sown with the birth of money. With the growth of a money economy, the feudal lords found the serf labour less competent than free labor. So they commuted the old feudal dues into fixed money payments. Lands were leased to free peasants in return for rent. Serfdom lost its foundations and gave way to peasant proprietorship. The peasantry achieved a degree of freedom and prosperity that it had not known in the last thousand years. The lessening of the old seigniorial relations between lord and the cultivator coupled with the continued disintegration of the manorial system further spurred the social position of the individual citizen.
The decline of feudalism opened the doors for agricultural development. In the feudal period, agricultural production was aimed only to meet the needs of the lord and his manor. The profit motive released by the money economy transformed feudal subsistence production into commercial agriculture. The new commercial agriculture helped change the unreflecting peasant of the 13th century into an individualistic and enterprising farmer. The freedom and emergence of individual as a result of the breakdown of feudalism and shift from a subsistence economy to a market economy prepared the grounds for the growth of English democracy.
Waves of inflation that swept through England during the 15th century provided additional impetus for the new agrarian economy. The rise in population and increase in the flow of silver and gold from America and Spain were important causes for inflation during this period. The price rise stimulated the commercial exploitation of land. It shattered the financial stability of the Crown, though the extent of the damage to the Crown only became fully apparent two centuries later. By depressing royal income deriving from fixed land rents and taxes and by increasing royal expenditure, the price rise made the king increasingly dependent on the Parliament for finance. The loss of the Crown’s financial independence was one of the most important reasons for the growth of political democracy. The price rise redistributed national income among the rising class of gentry and merchants. This redistribution of national wealth undermined the medieval concentration of wealth that had contributed to the suppression and serfdom of peasants.
The economic changes rendered possible by the forces of inflation and market economy brought to the forefront new classes in English society – gentry and yeomen. Along with the merchant class, the gentry and yeomen gradually replaced the old baronial families in the political and social life. This new landed aristocracy based more on wealth than on birth, became the nucleus for the governing class in the counties. Backed by the power of money, these classes gained the power to voice their political and religious disagreements with the government.

Who according to the passage is mentioned as ‘him’ in the following lines, ‘The possession of wealth, to him, was the hallmark of the fittest, to be worshipped like the Holy Grail’?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

Making analogies with Darwinian biology, which hit the world like a cloudburst in 1859, he tried to show that in the same way that nature worked automatically to select her “elite” and thus accomplish the “Survival of the Fittest,” so society could approach perfection to the extent that free play was allowed its “elite.” His statement: “There cannot be more good than that of letting social progress go on unhindered; an immensity of mischief may be done in . . . the artificial preservation of those least able to care for themselves,” sets out his position clearly. He defended cupidity (that great capitalist virtue) as part of the universal struggle for existence. The possession of wealth, to him, was the hallmark of the fittest, to be worshipped like the Holy Grail.
Success, sans the saving grace of stewardship, alone was considered of account. Calvinism, the doctrine of thrift, hard work, etc., was here revealed in all its nakedness shorn of its “conscience.” No wonder the developing capitalists of the “new” world hailed these findings as those of “science.” Of his disciples in the U.S.A., one of the most prominent was young Andrew Carnegie. This Scotch Presbyterian very early lost his faith and yet could not find justification for his secular calling. “Man must have an idol,” he held in 1868. “This amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry — no idol more debasing than the worship of money . . . To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery.” He nonetheless confessed: “I was determined to make a fortune . . . and nothing could be allowed to interfere with my business career.” Spencer’s pseudo-science provided Carnegie with the rationalisation for justifying his outlook. His (Carnegie’s) autobiography contains the following: “ . . . That light came as a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘All is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.” So, with his newfound religion, he laid the foundation for U. S. steel production — and the brutalities of Homestead. “Survival of Fittest” became linked with this “almost maniacal appetite for wealth prevalent in the United States,” to quote the poet, Whitman. Carnegie was but one of a vast number (almost all) of the businessmen of the time to take Spencer’s “science” to their bourgeois bosoms.
These were the years following the close of the Civil War; THE PROCLAMATION OF FREEDOM for the chattel slaves of the South; the passing of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. These, the days of “binding up the nation’s wounds;” of the “Reconstruction,” when the “freed” slaves found themselves more insecure, more enslaved than they were on the plantations and together with the “poor white trash” wandered aimlessly throughout the land in search of sustenance. The days of the Spenceriansin business who, recognising the value of political power, were not content to delegate that power to sycophants and stooges but who, directly, as members of the House and Senate were more numerous (as such) than at any other period in U. S. history. Later, through brainwashing techniques and promises of pelf, they produced and relied upon corrupt and mendacious mouthpieces.
In 1886, Senator George Hearst, father of William Randolph, confessed to his colleagues: “I do not know much about books; I have not read very much, but I have travelled a good deal and observed men and things and I have made up my mind after all my experiences that the members of the Senate are the Survivors of the Fittest.” (Emph. added.)
These were the days of expanding capital. The year after the war ended the Commercial and Financial Chronicle, envisaging the consequences of the war boom, put it this way:
“There is an increasing tendency in our capital to move in larger masses than formerly. Small business firms compete at more disadvantage with richer houses, and are gradually being absorbed into them.”

Why does the author say… ‘it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously’?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question.

The principles of equity, equality, and need are most relevant in the context of distributive justice, but might play a role in a variety of social justice issues. These principles all appeal to the notion of just desserts, the idea that fair treatment is a matter of giving people what they deserve. In general, people deserve to be rewarded for their effort and productivity, punished for their transgressions, treated as equal persons, and have their basic needs met. However, because these principles may come into conflict, it is often difficult to achieve all of these goals simultaneously. According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products...either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society. In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there are profits of $100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however, ignores differences in effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal initial distribution may not result in an equal outcome.
A principle of need, on the other hand, proposes that we strive for an equal outcome in which all society or group members get what they need. Thus poor people would get more money, and richer people would get less. This principle is sometimes criticised because it does not recognise differences in productive contributions or distinguish between real needs and manifested needs.
Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own sake but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal. For example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members.