Reading Comprehension Test - 11

What, according to the writer, was the factor that gave fillip to indigenous banking during the Mughal rule?

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

Before the indigenous bankers came into existence, the custom seems to have been to hoard capital wealth or deposit it with a friend. Gradually hawkers and guilds began to receive deposits and hold them as trust properties. No definite information is available whether they received deposits on payment of interest or for safe custody only. The Arthashastra lays down definite rules for the hoarding and utilization of wealth on interest, but is silent on the subject of deposit banking. Most early bankers were, however, traders who combined trade with banking.

There is evidence to show that in all important trade centers of the Buddhist period, there lived many bankers of great influence, who occupied prominent positions in guilds of commercial and industrial activities. Their main function was to finance traders, merchant adventurers or explorers in search of valuable materials, and kings in times of war and financial stress. Lending money on interest was common, the loans being secured by mortgage, by pledge of movables, or by surety. The Dharma Shastras, though in general agreement with the Arthashastra, introduced caste as an important factor in money lending, expectedly to the advantage of the higher castes.

During the early dynasties of the Muslim period, Multanis and Shroffs financed internal trade and commerce between different centres and acted as bankers to the Muslim rulers. It appears from the writings of a few Muslim historians, European travellers, State records and the Ain-e-Akbari, that both under the early Muslim and Mughal rulers in India, indigenous bankers played a prominent part in lending money, financing internal and foreign trade with cash or bills, and giving financial assistance to rulers. The Imperial Gazetteer records that Feroz Shah (1351-86) borrowed large sums of money from the Banker of Sasoti of Delhi for payment to his army. The soldiers of Delhi were paid by cash orders, italaq, in outlyhing places. These were discounted at Delhi by financiers who made a regular business of it and earned a good income.

Lending money on interest was therefore quite common, and steps were taken by the State to keep a check on usurers. Evidence shows that in the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Vaniks in Bengal charged interest at more than 500 per cent. As mentioned in the report of the United Provinces Banking Enquiry Committee, some indigenous bankers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were so powerful that they were comparable with private banking houses in any other country, and seem to have fulfilled many of the functions of a central bank.

During the Mughal rule the issue of various kinds of metallic money in different parts of the country gave the indigenous bankers great opportunities for developing the very profitable business of money changing, revenue collectors, bankers and money changers to government in various parts of the empire. Many of them wielded great influence in the country.

Which of the following is not implied by the author

1. earning profit was the sole objective for engaging in banking activities
2. wielding of power by the money lenders altered the course of history
3. banking activities were so designed as to suit the requirement of the higher caste

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

Before the indigenous bankers came into existence, the custom seems to have been to hoard capital wealth or deposit it with a friend. Gradually hawkers and guilds began to receive deposits and hold them as trust properties. No definite information is available whether they received deposits on payment of interest or for safe custody only. The Arthashastra lays down definite rules for the hoarding and utilization of wealth on interest, but is silent on the subject of deposit banking. Most early bankers were, however, traders who combined trade with banking.

There is evidence to show that in all important trade centers of the Buddhist period, there lived many bankers of great influence, who occupied prominent positions in guilds of commercial and industrial activities. Their main function was to finance traders, merchant adventurers or explorers in search of valuable materials, and kings in times of war and financial stress. Lending money on interest was common, the loans being secured by mortgage, by pledge of movables, or by surety. The Dharma Shastras, though in general agreement with the Arthashastra, introduced caste as an important factor in money lending, expectedly to the advantage of the higher castes.

During the early dynasties of the Muslim period, Multanis and Shroffs financed internal trade and commerce between different centres and acted as bankers to the Muslim rulers. It appears from the writings of a few Muslim historians, European travellers, State records and the Ain-e-Akbari, that both under the early Muslim and Mughal rulers in India, indigenous bankers played a prominent part in lending money, financing internal and foreign trade with cash or bills, and giving financial assistance to rulers. The Imperial Gazetteer records that Feroz Shah (1351-86) borrowed large sums of money from the Banker of Sasoti of Delhi for payment to his army. The soldiers of Delhi were paid by cash orders, italaq, in outlyhing places. These were discounted at Delhi by financiers who made a regular business of it and earned a good income.

Lending money on interest was therefore quite common, and steps were taken by the State to keep a check on usurers. Evidence shows that in the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Vaniks in Bengal charged interest at more than 500 per cent. As mentioned in the report of the United Provinces Banking Enquiry Committee, some indigenous bankers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were so powerful that they were comparable with private banking houses in any other country, and seem to have fulfilled many of the functions of a central bank.

During the Mughal rule the issue of various kinds of metallic money in different parts of the country gave the indigenous bankers great opportunities for developing the very profitable business of money changing, revenue collectors, bankers and money changers to government in various parts of the empire. Many of them wielded great influence in the country.

What was the earliest known custom, according to the writer, that became a precursor to indigenous banking?

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

Before the indigenous bankers came into existence, the custom seems to have been to hoard capital wealth or deposit it with a friend. Gradually hawkers and guilds began to receive deposits and hold them as trust properties. No definite information is available whether they received deposits on payment of interest or for safe custody only. The Arthashastra lays down definite rules for the hoarding and utilization of wealth on interest, but is silent on the subject of deposit banking. Most early bankers were, however, traders who combined trade with banking.

There is evidence to show that in all important trade centers of the Buddhist period, there lived many bankers of great influence, who occupied prominent positions in guilds of commercial and industrial activities. Their main function was to finance traders, merchant adventurers or explorers in search of valuable materials, and kings in times of war and financial stress. Lending money on interest was common, the loans being secured by mortgage, by pledge of movables, or by surety. The Dharma Shastras, though in general agreement with the Arthashastra, introduced caste as an important factor in money lending, expectedly to the advantage of the higher castes.

During the early dynasties of the Muslim period, Multanis and Shroffs financed internal trade and commerce between different centres and acted as bankers to the Muslim rulers. It appears from the writings of a few Muslim historians, European travellers, State records and the Ain-e-Akbari, that both under the early Muslim and Mughal rulers in India, indigenous bankers played a prominent part in lending money, financing internal and foreign trade with cash or bills, and giving financial assistance to rulers. The Imperial Gazetteer records that Feroz Shah (1351-86) borrowed large sums of money from the Banker of Sasoti of Delhi for payment to his army. The soldiers of Delhi were paid by cash orders, italaq, in outlyhing places. These were discounted at Delhi by financiers who made a regular business of it and earned a good income.

Lending money on interest was therefore quite common, and steps were taken by the State to keep a check on usurers. Evidence shows that in the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Vaniks in Bengal charged interest at more than 500 per cent. As mentioned in the report of the United Provinces Banking Enquiry Committee, some indigenous bankers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were so powerful that they were comparable with private banking houses in any other country, and seem to have fulfilled many of the functions of a central bank.

During the Mughal rule the issue of various kinds of metallic money in different parts of the country gave the indigenous bankers great opportunities for developing the very profitable business of money changing, revenue collectors, bankers and money changers to government in various parts of the empire. Many of them wielded great influence in the country.

What, according to the passage, were the earliest known activities a banker performed those days?

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

Before the indigenous bankers came into existence, the custom seems to have been to hoard capital wealth or deposit it with a friend. Gradually hawkers and guilds began to receive deposits and hold them as trust properties. No definite information is available whether they received deposits on payment of interest or for safe custody only. The Arthashastra lays down definite rules for the hoarding and utilization of wealth on interest, but is silent on the subject of deposit banking. Most early bankers were, however, traders who combined trade with banking.

There is evidence to show that in all important trade centers of the Buddhist period, there lived many bankers of great influence, who occupied prominent positions in guilds of commercial and industrial activities. Their main function was to finance traders, merchant adventurers or explorers in search of valuable materials, and kings in times of war and financial stress. Lending money on interest was common, the loans being secured by mortgage, by pledge of movables, or by surety. The Dharma Shastras, though in general agreement with the Arthashastra, introduced caste as an important factor in money lending, expectedly to the advantage of the higher castes.

During the early dynasties of the Muslim period, Multanis and Shroffs financed internal trade and commerce between different centres and acted as bankers to the Muslim rulers. It appears from the writings of a few Muslim historians, European travellers, State records and the Ain-e-Akbari, that both under the early Muslim and Mughal rulers in India, indigenous bankers played a prominent part in lending money, financing internal and foreign trade with cash or bills, and giving financial assistance to rulers. The Imperial Gazetteer records that Feroz Shah (1351-86) borrowed large sums of money from the Banker of Sasoti of Delhi for payment to his army. The soldiers of Delhi were paid by cash orders, italaq, in outlyhing places. These were discounted at Delhi by financiers who made a regular business of it and earned a good income.

Lending money on interest was therefore quite common, and steps were taken by the State to keep a check on usurers. Evidence shows that in the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Vaniks in Bengal charged interest at more than 500 per cent. As mentioned in the report of the United Provinces Banking Enquiry Committee, some indigenous bankers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were so powerful that they were comparable with private banking houses in any other country, and seem to have fulfilled many of the functions of a central bank.

During the Mughal rule the issue of various kinds of metallic money in different parts of the country gave the indigenous bankers great opportunities for developing the very profitable business of money changing, revenue collectors, bankers and money changers to government in various parts of the empire. Many of them wielded great influence in the country.

What will be the appropriate title of this passage?

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

Before the indigenous bankers came into existence, the custom seems to have been to hoard capital wealth or deposit it with a friend. Gradually hawkers and guilds began to receive deposits and hold them as trust properties. No definite information is available whether they received deposits on payment of interest or for safe custody only. The Arthashastra lays down definite rules for the hoarding and utilization of wealth on interest, but is silent on the subject of deposit banking. Most early bankers were, however, traders who combined trade with banking.

There is evidence to show that in all important trade centers of the Buddhist period, there lived many bankers of great influence, who occupied prominent positions in guilds of commercial and industrial activities. Their main function was to finance traders, merchant adventurers or explorers in search of valuable materials, and kings in times of war and financial stress. Lending money on interest was common, the loans being secured by mortgage, by pledge of movables, or by surety. The Dharma Shastras, though in general agreement with the Arthashastra, introduced caste as an important factor in money lending, expectedly to the advantage of the higher castes.

During the early dynasties of the Muslim period, Multanis and Shroffs financed internal trade and commerce between different centres and acted as bankers to the Muslim rulers. It appears from the writings of a few Muslim historians, European travellers, State records and the Ain-e-Akbari, that both under the early Muslim and Mughal rulers in India, indigenous bankers played a prominent part in lending money, financing internal and foreign trade with cash or bills, and giving financial assistance to rulers. The Imperial Gazetteer records that Feroz Shah (1351-86) borrowed large sums of money from the Banker of Sasoti of Delhi for payment to his army. The soldiers of Delhi were paid by cash orders, italaq, in outlyhing places. These were discounted at Delhi by financiers who made a regular business of it and earned a good income.

Lending money on interest was therefore quite common, and steps were taken by the State to keep a check on usurers. Evidence shows that in the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Vaniks in Bengal charged interest at more than 500 per cent. As mentioned in the report of the United Provinces Banking Enquiry Committee, some indigenous bankers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were so powerful that they were comparable with private banking houses in any other country, and seem to have fulfilled many of the functions of a central bank.

During the Mughal rule the issue of various kinds of metallic money in different parts of the country gave the indigenous bankers great opportunities for developing the very profitable business of money changing, revenue collectors, bankers and money changers to government in various parts of the empire. Many of them wielded great influence in the country.

What is the attitude of the writer of this passage towards the socialists?

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

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

The writer seems to suggest that a system based on the premise of separating the state from the industry

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

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the writer

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

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

What, according to the writer, is the essential difference between capitalism and socialism?

1. Capitalism is efficient while socialism is inefficient.
2. Capitalism breeds competition while socialism seeks cooperation.
3. Capitalism encourages individuals while state discourages individuals.

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

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

Which of the following cannot be reasonably derived from the passage?

1. Poverty can both be equitably distributed and shared in socialism for mutual benefit of all.
2. Countries that have embraced capitalism have largely progressed and benefited from it.
3. Capitalism encourages individual excellence that helps create social wealth.

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

Capitalism is a system based on the principle of individual rights and responsibilities. The bulk of economic activity is organized through private enterprise operating in a free market. Each person survives and flourishes based on his freedom to use his ability. Individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain. Market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state from the industry. The role of the state is to regulate and protect. Each person has a right to the product of his own work and is driven to action by the opportunity to create wealth. Collectively, we create wealth for society.

In a market system, there are personal incentives for workers to do their jobs well, and for managers to make good decisions. It now seems obvious that a market economy is vastly more productive than one controlled from the centre. The extraordinary level of material prosperity achieved by the capitalist system over the course of the last two hundred years is a matter of historical record. Socialism, on the other, is a method of organizing a society in which the means of production and distribution of goods are controlled by the state and private ownership is controlled in the interest of the state. It is based on cooperation rather than competition and utilizes centralized planning and distribution. It propounds the idea of equality of income and property. Unfortunately, socialism has only led to the concentration of economic power in unaccountable centralized institutions. Under the socialist doctrine, as is practised by some emerging countries, there is an assumption that a limited amount of wealth exists in the world and must be divided equally among all citizens.

If the wealth of the world is equally divided among people throughout the world, there will, of course, be no rich people any more. But everybody will still be poor. You cannot distribute poverty. Socialists often forget that we have to first create wealth in order to distribute it. We have seen how such an economic system of centralized planning leads to ‘ordinary citizens in political fetters with low standard of living and little power to control their own destiny’. A popular joke on socialism is that in a socialist system there is no unemployment while, at the same time, no one works; no one works, but everyone still gets a salary; and while everyone gets a salary, there is nothing to buy!
Countries that have embraced capitalism and let free markets thrive have progressed. By leveraging the power of capitalism, the world has surely made tremendous advances. The world GDP has grown six-fold in the last fifty years. We have created tremendous economic capital, albeit for a small part of the planet.

In the passage, the author does NOT identify which of the following as a characteristic of agriculture in Africa?

Passage:
Many governments among African nations are trying to translate the abundance of land into an asset that can actually feed their population. Frequently, these efforts are very broad based and are aimed at accomplishing multiple objectives. A multi-pronged project that aims to bolster crop yields, increase area under cultivation, diversify crop types, introduce modern farming techniques, and perhaps increase infrastructure to handle it all is trying to do too much at the same time. In many nations the funds are not ample, and support from donor nations powers such projects. In such a scenario, a concentrated approach that focuses on one parameter, in a single region, is more likely to produce results. Once the objective is attained, the same can be replicated across other regions, with the lessons from the pilot project factored in. Doing so also ensures that if the aid dries up at some time, the areas where the project had been initiated successfully will keep benefiting.
Another roadblock in the path to progress is the measurability of the government objectives in the developing African nations. Aiming for agrarian progress, without quantifying how to measure it, is a sure-fire way to ensure a stillborn economy. Governments work better when the targets are laid out in crisp detail.

Which of the statements below correctly describes the relation between agricultural development and the government action in Africa?

Passage:
Many governments among African nations are trying to translate the abundance of land into an asset that can actually feed their population. Frequently, these efforts are very broad based and are aimed at accomplishing multiple objectives. A multi-pronged project that aims to bolster crop yields, increase area under cultivation, diversify crop types, introduce modern farming techniques, and perhaps increase infrastructure to handle it all is trying to do too much at the same time. In many nations the funds are not ample, and support from donor nations powers such projects. In such a scenario, a concentrated approach that focuses on one parameter, in a single region, is more likely to produce results. Once the objective is attained, the same can be replicated across other regions, with the lessons from the pilot project factored in. Doing so also ensures that if the aid dries up at some time, the areas where the project had been initiated successfully will keep benefiting.
Another roadblock in the path to progress is the measurability of the government objectives in the developing African nations. Aiming for agrarian progress, without quantifying how to measure it, is a sure-fire way to ensure a stillborn economy. Governments work better when the targets are laid out in crisp detail.