Reading Comprehension Test - 3

Why does William Price state that ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling’?

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The passage is an exposition on

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The author while talking about barter system in India refers to jajmani system. Besides highlighting the barter system prevalent in India, what else does this system convey?

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The passage records

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

Some of the following give forth many ingredients that define money. Which one of them can be taken as the chief ingredient?

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

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The passage seems to suggest that the lurking fear of yore times has gone because

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

That India and the United States of America have different experiences with constitution making is not in doubt. The US initially came into being as a consequence of Individual states joining the Union in a voluntary federation. The Republic of India, despite being a nominal ‘Union of States’, evolved as the successor regime of British India (minus the parts that made up Pakistan). To this was added the many hundred princely states whose rulers signed the instrument of Accession and were effortlessly subsumed into the new republic. With the states being regarded as mere administrative units, there was a basis to B.R.Ambedkar’s assertion in the constituent assembly that the Constitution did not acknowledge any right of secession.

The constitutional denial of secession is worth reiterating if only to set at rest the uninformed fear that the recent political battles over federalism are a precursor to the weakening and eventual disintegration of Indian Union. Admittedly this was a lurking fear in the first two decades after independence but following the creation of a national market, the rise in inter-state mobility and the unifying effects of the media, film industries and cricket, the fear of India falling apart has virtually become a non-issue. It would be preposterous to suggest that those at the forefront of the demand to review centre-state relations harbour separatist ambitions. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the recent political strains between the non-Congress ruled states and the Centre have not been accompanied by sectarian strains involving local people and outsiders.

The movement for more equitable federal relations has undergone a profound change since the last years of Indira Gandhi’s government. In those days, much of the controversy centred on the powers of the governor and the partisan use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments. It was primarily these political concerns that led to the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to review the whole gamut of centre-state relations.
While many states continue to be unhappy with the Centre’s de facto veto over state legislation, it would be fair to say that the debate has shifted to the more pressing issue of fiscal powers. What has triggered this debate is India’s economic growth: the rapid growth of the country’s gross domestic product since the process of liberalization began in 1991. In the recent years, the gross tax revenues of the country as a whole have increased exponentially.

The fundamental issue that the author raises and sets at rest in this passage pertains to

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

That India and the United States of America have different experiences with constitution making is not in doubt. The US initially came into being as a consequence of Individual states joining the Union in a voluntary federation. The Republic of India, despite being a nominal ‘Union of States’, evolved as the successor regime of British India (minus the parts that made up Pakistan). To this was added the many hundred princely states whose rulers signed the instrument of Accession and were effortlessly subsumed into the new republic. With the states being regarded as mere administrative units, there was a basis to B.R.Ambedkar’s assertion in the constituent assembly that the Constitution did not acknowledge any right of secession.

The constitutional denial of secession is worth reiterating if only to set at rest the uninformed fear that the recent political battles over federalism are a precursor to the weakening and eventual disintegration of Indian Union. Admittedly this was a lurking fear in the first two decades after independence but following the creation of a national market, the rise in inter-state mobility and the unifying effects of the media, film industries and cricket, the fear of India falling apart has virtually become a non-issue. It would be preposterous to suggest that those at the forefront of the demand to review centre-state relations harbour separatist ambitions. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the recent political strains between the non-Congress ruled states and the Centre have not been accompanied by sectarian strains involving local people and outsiders.

The movement for more equitable federal relations has undergone a profound change since the last years of Indira Gandhi’s government. In those days, much of the controversy centred on the powers of the governor and the partisan use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments. It was primarily these political concerns that led to the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to review the whole gamut of centre-state relations.
While many states continue to be unhappy with the Centre’s de facto veto over state legislation, it would be fair to say that the debate has shifted to the more pressing issue of fiscal powers. What has triggered this debate is India’s economic growth: the rapid growth of the country’s gross domestic product since the process of liberalization began in 1991. In the recent years, the gross tax revenues of the country as a whole have increased exponentially.

How does the comparison between India and US with regard to experiences on constitution making help the author in presenting his case?

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

That India and the United States of America have different experiences with constitution making is not in doubt. The US initially came into being as a consequence of Individual states joining the Union in a voluntary federation. The Republic of India, despite being a nominal ‘Union of States’, evolved as the successor regime of British India (minus the parts that made up Pakistan). To this was added the many hundred princely states whose rulers signed the instrument of Accession and were effortlessly subsumed into the new republic. With the states being regarded as mere administrative units, there was a basis to B.R.Ambedkar’s assertion in the constituent assembly that the Constitution did not acknowledge any right of secession.

The constitutional denial of secession is worth reiterating if only to set at rest the uninformed fear that the recent political battles over federalism are a precursor to the weakening and eventual disintegration of Indian Union. Admittedly this was a lurking fear in the first two decades after independence but following the creation of a national market, the rise in inter-state mobility and the unifying effects of the media, film industries and cricket, the fear of India falling apart has virtually become a non-issue. It would be preposterous to suggest that those at the forefront of the demand to review centre-state relations harbour separatist ambitions. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the recent political strains between the non-Congress ruled states and the Centre have not been accompanied by sectarian strains involving local people and outsiders.

The movement for more equitable federal relations has undergone a profound change since the last years of Indira Gandhi’s government. In those days, much of the controversy centred on the powers of the governor and the partisan use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments. It was primarily these political concerns that led to the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to review the whole gamut of centre-state relations.
While many states continue to be unhappy with the Centre’s de facto veto over state legislation, it would be fair to say that the debate has shifted to the more pressing issue of fiscal powers. What has triggered this debate is India’s economic growth: the rapid growth of the country’s gross domestic product since the process of liberalization began in 1991. In the recent years, the gross tax revenues of the country as a whole have increased exponentially.

The author speaks about two fears: 'uninformed fear' and 'lurking fear'. Why these fears?

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

That India and the United States of America have different experiences with constitution making is not in doubt. The US initially came into being as a consequence of Individual states joining the Union in a voluntary federation. The Republic of India, despite being a nominal ‘Union of States’, evolved as the successor regime of British India (minus the parts that made up Pakistan). To this was added the many hundred princely states whose rulers signed the instrument of Accession and were effortlessly subsumed into the new republic. With the states being regarded as mere administrative units, there was a basis to B.R.Ambedkar’s assertion in the constituent assembly that the Constitution did not acknowledge any right of secession.

The constitutional denial of secession is worth reiterating if only to set at rest the uninformed fear that the recent political battles over federalism are a precursor to the weakening and eventual disintegration of Indian Union. Admittedly this was a lurking fear in the first two decades after independence but following the creation of a national market, the rise in inter-state mobility and the unifying effects of the media, film industries and cricket, the fear of India falling apart has virtually become a non-issue. It would be preposterous to suggest that those at the forefront of the demand to review centre-state relations harbour separatist ambitions. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the recent political strains between the non-Congress ruled states and the Centre have not been accompanied by sectarian strains involving local people and outsiders.

The movement for more equitable federal relations has undergone a profound change since the last years of Indira Gandhi’s government. In those days, much of the controversy centred on the powers of the governor and the partisan use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments. It was primarily these political concerns that led to the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to review the whole gamut of centre-state relations.
While many states continue to be unhappy with the Centre’s de facto veto over state legislation, it would be fair to say that the debate has shifted to the more pressing issue of fiscal powers. What has triggered this debate is India’s economic growth: the rapid growth of the country’s gross domestic product since the process of liberalization began in 1991. In the recent years, the gross tax revenues of the country as a whole have increased exponentially.

The author uses the word 'preposterous' in the second paragraph of the passage. What impression does the word give about the intent of the author?
(a) The author is dismissive of any suggestion that those seeking review of centre-state relations harbour separatist ambition.
(b) The author condemns those who seek to secede from the union on the pretext of seeking more power for their states.
(c) The author sees demand for review of centre-state relation as a normal exercise and is highly critical and roundly dismissive of those trying to brand such demands as a ploy to seek secession.
(d) The author does not attach importance to those who are critical of those seeking improved power for their states.
(e) The author seems to pooh-pooh the efforts of those seeking more powers from the centre while actually working to a plan to seek to secede.

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

That India and the United States of America have different experiences with constitution making is not in doubt. The US initially came into being as a consequence of Individual states joining the Union in a voluntary federation. The Republic of India, despite being a nominal ‘Union of States’, evolved as the successor regime of British India (minus the parts that made up Pakistan). To this was added the many hundred princely states whose rulers signed the instrument of Accession and were effortlessly subsumed into the new republic. With the states being regarded as mere administrative units, there was a basis to B.R.Ambedkar’s assertion in the constituent assembly that the Constitution did not acknowledge any right of secession.

The constitutional denial of secession is worth reiterating if only to set at rest the uninformed fear that the recent political battles over federalism are a precursor to the weakening and eventual disintegration of Indian Union. Admittedly this was a lurking fear in the first two decades after independence but following the creation of a national market, the rise in inter-state mobility and the unifying effects of the media, film industries and cricket, the fear of India falling apart has virtually become a non-issue. It would be preposterous to suggest that those at the forefront of the demand to review centre-state relations harbour separatist ambitions. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the recent political strains between the non-Congress ruled states and the Centre have not been accompanied by sectarian strains involving local people and outsiders.

The movement for more equitable federal relations has undergone a profound change since the last years of Indira Gandhi’s government. In those days, much of the controversy centred on the powers of the governor and the partisan use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments. It was primarily these political concerns that led to the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to review the whole gamut of centre-state relations.
While many states continue to be unhappy with the Centre’s de facto veto over state legislation, it would be fair to say that the debate has shifted to the more pressing issue of fiscal powers. What has triggered this debate is India’s economic growth: the rapid growth of the country’s gross domestic product since the process of liberalization began in 1991. In the recent years, the gross tax revenues of the country as a whole have increased exponentially.

g scenarios will fuel the author's concern about global warming, EXCEPT

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Scientists and environmentalists estimate that at the present rate of global warming, our planet will have heated up by nearly two degree centigrade by the end of the century. Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions immediately, the pollutants in the atmosphere will drive up the global temperature by around half a degree.  If allowed to run unchecked, the global warming will impact even the permafrost at the poles. Permafrost refers to the perennially frozen part of earth in the Tundra and Polar Regions. At some places, the permafrost is just a few meters thick, while at others, it extends to depths of hundreds of meters. It is feared that in the eventuality of the melting of the polar caps, the poles will turn into a giant carbon-dioxide generation zone. The permanent freeze keeps the carbon inert but at higher temperatures, carbon will react with oxygen present in the air to form oxides. The non-existent flora of the tundra will not be enough to absorb a sufficient quantity of the greenhouse gases that are expected to be released when the polar ice-caps melt. However, keeping in view the grandiose declarations of the policy makers, who are setting ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse emissions without coming out with a plan that puts their money where their plan is, it is highly unlikely that we will halt, much less reverse, the timeline for an appointment with Armageddon. It would mean that emission cuts of the level un-thought of till today will have to be achieved to halt any further increase in global warming.

What is a suitable heading for the passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Scientists and environmentalists estimate that at the present rate of global warming, our planet will have heated up by nearly two degree centigrade by the end of the century. Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions immediately, the pollutants in the atmosphere will drive up the global temperature by around half a degree.  If allowed to run unchecked, the global warming will impact even the permafrost at the poles. Permafrost refers to the perennially frozen part of earth in the Tundra and Polar Regions. At some places, the permafrost is just a few meters thick, while at others, it extends to depths of hundreds of meters. It is feared that in the eventuality of the melting of the polar caps, the poles will turn into a giant carbon-dioxide generation zone. The permanent freeze keeps the carbon inert but at higher temperatures, carbon will react with oxygen present in the air to form oxides. The non-existent flora of the tundra will not be enough to absorb a sufficient quantity of the greenhouse gases that are expected to be released when the polar ice-caps melt. However, keeping in view the grandiose declarations of the policy makers, who are setting ambitious targets for cutting greenhouse emissions without coming out with a plan that puts their money where their plan is, it is highly unlikely that we will halt, much less reverse, the timeline for an appointment with Armageddon. It would mean that emission cuts of the level un-thought of till today will have to be achieved to halt any further increase in global warming.