Verbal Ability (Mixed)

Directions: The given sentence has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are four numbered-(1), (2), (3) and (4)-words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

As India continues to grow and _________ the rest of the world will watch with growing respect-as this fascinating, dynamic, ingenious nation strides forward to realize its ___________

Directions: The given sentence has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are four numbered-(1), (2), (3) and (4)-words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

It comes as no surprise that societies have a code of behaviour, the character of the codes, on the other hand, can often be ____________

Directions: The given sentence has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are four numbered-(1), (2), (3) and (4)-words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

In summary, India's ________ story is one of innovation around technology using its strengths in knowledge and the __________ ability of its people.

Directions: The given sentence has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are four numbered-(1), (2), (3) and (4)-words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

The Tata Group will need all its considerable management__________ and _________ to manage tough challenges ahead after taking over Corus Steel.

Directions: The given sentence has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are four numbered-(1), (2), (3) and (4)-words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

The characterization of historical analysis as a form of fiction is not likely to be received __________ by either historians or literary critics, who agree that history and fiction deal with__________ orders of experience.

Directions: In this question, the sentence has three or four highlighted words or phrases. Identify the one highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. The highlighted parts of the sentence are numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4). In a sentence where only three words or phrases are underlined, the fourth option is “No change”- the sentence as stated is grammatically correct and hence no change is required. Remember that you have only to identify the highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct.

That's one small ⁽¹⁾ step for man,⁽²⁾ one giant leap ⁽³⁾ for mankind.

Directions: In this question, the sentence has three or four highlighted words or phrases. Identify the one highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. The highlighted parts of the sentence are numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4). In a sentence where only three words or phrases are underlined, the fourth option is “No change”- the sentence as stated is grammatically correct and hence no change is required. Remember that you have only to identify the highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct.

Nitrogen ⁽¹⁾ makes up over ⁽²⁾ 78 percent ⁽³⁾ of the Earth's atmosphere, the gaseous mass surrounding the plant.

Directions: The given sentence has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are four numbered-(1), (2), (3) and (4)-words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each blank that best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

For sometime now, __________ has been presumed not to exist: the cynical conviction that everybody has an angle is considered wisdom.

Directions: In this question, the sentence has three or four highlighted words or phrases. Identify the one highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. The highlighted parts of the sentence are numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4). In a sentence where only three words or phrases are underlined, the fourth option is “No change”- the sentence as stated is grammatically correct and hence no change is required. Remember that you have only to identify the highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct.

With Tata Steel seemingly ⁽¹⁾ close to taking over corus, attention is ⁽²⁾ increasingly focusing on ⁽³⁾ the strategic rational ⁽⁴⁾ for the deal.

Directions: In this question, the sentence has three or four highlighted words or phrases. Identify the one highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. The highlighted parts of the sentence are numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4). In a sentence where only three words or phrases are underlined, the fourth option is “No change”- the sentence as stated is grammatically correct and hence no change is required. Remember that you have only to identify the highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct.

They are blind leaders of the blind ⁽¹⁾ . And if the blind leads ⁽²⁾ the blind, both shall ⁽³⁾ fall into the ditch.

Directions: In this question, the sentence has three or four highlighted words or phrases. Identify the one highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. The highlighted parts of the sentence are numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4). In a sentence where only three words or phrases are underlined, the fourth option is “No change”- the sentence as stated is grammatically correct and hence no change is required. Remember that you have only to identify the highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct.

By increasing the Eleventh Plan growth target an average of ⁽¹⁾ 9% without compromising fiscal ⁽²⁾ prudence, the Prime Minister of India has set ⁽³⁾ his government a stiff target, requiring bold reforms and innovative plan funding.

Directions: In this question, the sentence has three or four highlighted words or phrases. Identify the one highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. The highlighted parts of the sentence are numbered (1), (2), (3) and (4). In a sentence where only three words or phrases are underlined, the fourth option is “No change”- the sentence as stated is grammatically correct and hence no change is required. Remember that you have only to identify the highlighted word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct.

Great technical ⁽¹⁾ advances in aerial and satellite ⁽²⁾ photography have ⁽³⁾ been made since end ⁽⁴⁾ of the Second World War.

Which one of the following titles could be most suitable for the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

            At its recent annual meeting, World Bank officials spoke extensively about corruption. It is an understandable concern: money that the Bank lends to developing countries that ends up in secret bank accounts or finance contactors’ luxurious lifestyles leaves a country more indebted, not more prosperous.
            James Wolfensohn, the Bank’s pervious president and the author were widely credited with putting corruption on the Bank’s agenda, against opponents who regarded corruption as a political issue, not an economic one, and thus outside the Bank’s mandate. Our research showed systematic relationships between corruption and economic growth, which allowed us to pursue this critical issue.
            But the World Bank would do well to keep four things in mind as it takes up the fight. First, corruption takes many forms, so a war on corruption has to be fought on many fronts. You can’t fight the diversion of small amounts of money by weak and poor countries while ignoring the massive diversion of public resources into private hands of the sort that marked, say, Russia under Boris Yeltsin.
            In some countries, overt corruption occurs primarily through campaign contributions that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours. Smaller scale corruption is bad, but systematic corruption of political process can have even greater costs. Campaign contributions and lobbying that lead to rapid privatization of utilities-before appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place, and in a manner that produces only a few bidders-cans impede developments, even without direct kickbacks to government officials.
            Life is never black and white. Just as there is no “one size fits all” policy for economic development, there is no such policy for fighting corruption. The response for fighting needs to be as complex and variegated as corruption itself.
            Second, it’s fine for the World Bank to deliver anti-corruption summons. But policies, procedures, and institutions are what matter. In fact, the Bank’s procurement procedures are generally viewed around the world as a model to be admired. Indeed, some countries with large dollar reserves-hardly in need of World Bank credit-borrowed from the Bank at far higher interest rates than they were getting from the US, believing that these procedures would help ensure high quality projects free of corruption and become standard in other areas.
            But fighting corruption entails more than just good procurement procedures (avoiding, for instance, single source non competitive bidding). Many other policies and procedures can be enacted that reduce the incentive for corruption. For example, some tax systems are more corruption-resistant than others, because they curtail the discretionary authority of tax officials.
            Third, the World Bank’s primary responsibility to fight poverty, which means that when it plans to assist a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to figure out how to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. In some cases, this may entail delivering assistance through non-governmental organizations. But seldom will it be the case that best response is simply to be away.
            Finally, while developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, there is much that the West can do to help. At a minimum, western governments and corporations should not be complicit. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or someone acting on its behalf.
            Indeed, one reason for the so called “natural resource curse”-the fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do as well as resource poor countries-is the prevalence of corruption , too often added and abetted by companies that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices. The US under President Jimmy Carter made an important contribution in passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made bribery by American companies anywhere in the world illegal. The OECD’s convention on bribery was another step in the right direction. Making all payments to governments transparent would bring further progress, and western governments could encourage this simply by tying this requirements to tax deductibility.
            It is equally important to address bank secrecy, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt dictators’ wives a safe haven for their funds. In August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks on America, the US government vetoed an OECD effort to limit secret bank accounts. While the government has since reversed its stance on bank secrecy for terrorists, it has not done so for corrupt officials. A strong stand by the World Bank would enhance its credibility in the war on corruption.
            Those who criticize the Bank’s stance on corruption do not so because they favour corruption. Some critics worry about corruption in the corruption agenda itself, that the fight will be used as a “cover” for cutting aid to countries that displease the US administration. Such concerns have found resonance in the seeming incongruity of the Bank’s tough talk on corruption and simultaneous plans to expand lending to Iraq. No one is like to certify that Iraq is corruption free-or even ranks low on corruption internationally.
            The main strident criticism, however comes from those who worry that the Bank is straying away from its mandate. Of course, the Bank must do everything that it can to ensure that its money is well spent, which means fighting both corruption and incompetence.
            But money itself will not solve all problems and a single-minded focus on fighting, corruption will not bring development. On the contrary, it might merely divert attention from other issues of no less important for those struggling to lift themselves out of poverty.

Which of the following(s), the author suggested that the World Bank would do well to keep things in mind as it takes up the fight against corruption?
I. Corruption in poor developing countries is so well spread that it is less of an administrative and economic issue than more of a political issue, which can be dealt with through countries` policy to fight corruption.
II.Despite the fact that it is the developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, the West can do much to help. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or some one acting on its behalf. Therefore, at a minimum, the western governments and corporations should not be complicit.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

            At its recent annual meeting, World Bank officials spoke extensively about corruption. It is an understandable concern: money that the Bank lends to developing countries that ends up in secret bank accounts or finance contactors’ luxurious lifestyles leaves a country more indebted, not more prosperous.
            James Wolfensohn, the Bank’s pervious president and the author were widely credited with putting corruption on the Bank’s agenda, against opponents who regarded corruption as a political issue, not an economic one, and thus outside the Bank’s mandate. Our research showed systematic relationships between corruption and economic growth, which allowed us to pursue this critical issue.
            But the World Bank would do well to keep four things in mind as it takes up the fight. First, corruption takes many forms, so a war on corruption has to be fought on many fronts. You can’t fight the diversion of small amounts of money by weak and poor countries while ignoring the massive diversion of public resources into private hands of the sort that marked, say, Russia under Boris Yeltsin.
            In some countries, overt corruption occurs primarily through campaign contributions that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours. Smaller scale corruption is bad, but systematic corruption of political process can have even greater costs. Campaign contributions and lobbying that lead to rapid privatization of utilities-before appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place, and in a manner that produces only a few bidders-cans impede developments, even without direct kickbacks to government officials.
            Life is never black and white. Just as there is no “one size fits all” policy for economic development, there is no such policy for fighting corruption. The response for fighting needs to be as complex and variegated as corruption itself.
            Second, it’s fine for the World Bank to deliver anti-corruption summons. But policies, procedures, and institutions are what matter. In fact, the Bank’s procurement procedures are generally viewed around the world as a model to be admired. Indeed, some countries with large dollar reserves-hardly in need of World Bank credit-borrowed from the Bank at far higher interest rates than they were getting from the US, believing that these procedures would help ensure high quality projects free of corruption and become standard in other areas.
            But fighting corruption entails more than just good procurement procedures (avoiding, for instance, single source non competitive bidding). Many other policies and procedures can be enacted that reduce the incentive for corruption. For example, some tax systems are more corruption-resistant than others, because they curtail the discretionary authority of tax officials.
            Third, the World Bank’s primary responsibility to fight poverty, which means that when it plans to assist a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to figure out how to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. In some cases, this may entail delivering assistance through non-governmental organizations. But seldom will it be the case that best response is simply to be away.
            Finally, while developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, there is much that the West can do to help. At a minimum, western governments and corporations should not be complicit. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or someone acting on its behalf.
            Indeed, one reason for the so called “natural resource curse”-the fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do as well as resource poor countries-is the prevalence of corruption , too often added and abetted by companies that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices. The US under President Jimmy Carter made an important contribution in passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made bribery by American companies anywhere in the world illegal. The OECD’s convention on bribery was another step in the right direction. Making all payments to governments transparent would bring further progress, and western governments could encourage this simply by tying this requirements to tax deductibility.
            It is equally important to address bank secrecy, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt dictators’ wives a safe haven for their funds. In August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks on America, the US government vetoed an OECD effort to limit secret bank accounts. While the government has since reversed its stance on bank secrecy for terrorists, it has not done so for corrupt officials. A strong stand by the World Bank would enhance its credibility in the war on corruption.
            Those who criticize the Bank’s stance on corruption do not so because they favour corruption. Some critics worry about corruption in the corruption agenda itself, that the fight will be used as a “cover” for cutting aid to countries that displease the US administration. Such concerns have found resonance in the seeming incongruity of the Bank’s tough talk on corruption and simultaneous plans to expand lending to Iraq. No one is like to certify that Iraq is corruption free-or even ranks low on corruption internationally.
            The main strident criticism, however comes from those who worry that the Bank is straying away from its mandate. Of course, the Bank must do everything that it can to ensure that its money is well spent, which means fighting both corruption and incompetence.
            But money itself will not solve all problems and a single-minded focus on fighting, corruption will not bring development. On the contrary, it might merely divert attention from other issues of no less important for those struggling to lift themselves out of poverty.

The tone of the author, in his passage, could be best described as except

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

            At its recent annual meeting, World Bank officials spoke extensively about corruption. It is an understandable concern: money that the Bank lends to developing countries that ends up in secret bank accounts or finance contactors’ luxurious lifestyles leaves a country more indebted, not more prosperous.
            James Wolfensohn, the Bank’s pervious president and the author were widely credited with putting corruption on the Bank’s agenda, against opponents who regarded corruption as a political issue, not an economic one, and thus outside the Bank’s mandate. Our research showed systematic relationships between corruption and economic growth, which allowed us to pursue this critical issue.
            But the World Bank would do well to keep four things in mind as it takes up the fight. First, corruption takes many forms, so a war on corruption has to be fought on many fronts. You can’t fight the diversion of small amounts of money by weak and poor countries while ignoring the massive diversion of public resources into private hands of the sort that marked, say, Russia under Boris Yeltsin.
            In some countries, overt corruption occurs primarily through campaign contributions that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours. Smaller scale corruption is bad, but systematic corruption of political process can have even greater costs. Campaign contributions and lobbying that lead to rapid privatization of utilities-before appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place, and in a manner that produces only a few bidders-cans impede developments, even without direct kickbacks to government officials.
            Life is never black and white. Just as there is no “one size fits all” policy for economic development, there is no such policy for fighting corruption. The response for fighting needs to be as complex and variegated as corruption itself.
            Second, it’s fine for the World Bank to deliver anti-corruption summons. But policies, procedures, and institutions are what matter. In fact, the Bank’s procurement procedures are generally viewed around the world as a model to be admired. Indeed, some countries with large dollar reserves-hardly in need of World Bank credit-borrowed from the Bank at far higher interest rates than they were getting from the US, believing that these procedures would help ensure high quality projects free of corruption and become standard in other areas.
            But fighting corruption entails more than just good procurement procedures (avoiding, for instance, single source non competitive bidding). Many other policies and procedures can be enacted that reduce the incentive for corruption. For example, some tax systems are more corruption-resistant than others, because they curtail the discretionary authority of tax officials.
            Third, the World Bank’s primary responsibility to fight poverty, which means that when it plans to assist a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to figure out how to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. In some cases, this may entail delivering assistance through non-governmental organizations. But seldom will it be the case that best response is simply to be away.
            Finally, while developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, there is much that the West can do to help. At a minimum, western governments and corporations should not be complicit. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or someone acting on its behalf.
            Indeed, one reason for the so called “natural resource curse”-the fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do as well as resource poor countries-is the prevalence of corruption , too often added and abetted by companies that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices. The US under President Jimmy Carter made an important contribution in passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made bribery by American companies anywhere in the world illegal. The OECD’s convention on bribery was another step in the right direction. Making all payments to governments transparent would bring further progress, and western governments could encourage this simply by tying this requirements to tax deductibility.
            It is equally important to address bank secrecy, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt dictators’ wives a safe haven for their funds. In August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks on America, the US government vetoed an OECD effort to limit secret bank accounts. While the government has since reversed its stance on bank secrecy for terrorists, it has not done so for corrupt officials. A strong stand by the World Bank would enhance its credibility in the war on corruption.
            Those who criticize the Bank’s stance on corruption do not so because they favour corruption. Some critics worry about corruption in the corruption agenda itself, that the fight will be used as a “cover” for cutting aid to countries that displease the US administration. Such concerns have found resonance in the seeming incongruity of the Bank’s tough talk on corruption and simultaneous plans to expand lending to Iraq. No one is like to certify that Iraq is corruption free-or even ranks low on corruption internationally.
            The main strident criticism, however comes from those who worry that the Bank is straying away from its mandate. Of course, the Bank must do everything that it can to ensure that its money is well spent, which means fighting both corruption and incompetence.
            But money itself will not solve all problems and a single-minded focus on fighting, corruption will not bring development. On the contrary, it might merely divert attention from other issues of no less important for those struggling to lift themselves out of poverty.

According to the passage, which of the following statements(s) is/are true?
I. US Government's stance on bank secrecy account, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt officials with a safe haven for their funds, will limit bank secrecy and thus help fight corruption.
II. Contributions to election fund in some countries before election that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours is a source of overt corruption.
III. When the World Bank confronts a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. Only this way the Bank's primary responsibility to fight poverty could be fulfilled.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

            At its recent annual meeting, World Bank officials spoke extensively about corruption. It is an understandable concern: money that the Bank lends to developing countries that ends up in secret bank accounts or finance contactors’ luxurious lifestyles leaves a country more indebted, not more prosperous.
            James Wolfensohn, the Bank’s pervious president and the author were widely credited with putting corruption on the Bank’s agenda, against opponents who regarded corruption as a political issue, not an economic one, and thus outside the Bank’s mandate. Our research showed systematic relationships between corruption and economic growth, which allowed us to pursue this critical issue.
            But the World Bank would do well to keep four things in mind as it takes up the fight. First, corruption takes many forms, so a war on corruption has to be fought on many fronts. You can’t fight the diversion of small amounts of money by weak and poor countries while ignoring the massive diversion of public resources into private hands of the sort that marked, say, Russia under Boris Yeltsin.
            In some countries, overt corruption occurs primarily through campaign contributions that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours. Smaller scale corruption is bad, but systematic corruption of political process can have even greater costs. Campaign contributions and lobbying that lead to rapid privatization of utilities-before appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place, and in a manner that produces only a few bidders-cans impede developments, even without direct kickbacks to government officials.
            Life is never black and white. Just as there is no “one size fits all” policy for economic development, there is no such policy for fighting corruption. The response for fighting needs to be as complex and variegated as corruption itself.
            Second, it’s fine for the World Bank to deliver anti-corruption summons. But policies, procedures, and institutions are what matter. In fact, the Bank’s procurement procedures are generally viewed around the world as a model to be admired. Indeed, some countries with large dollar reserves-hardly in need of World Bank credit-borrowed from the Bank at far higher interest rates than they were getting from the US, believing that these procedures would help ensure high quality projects free of corruption and become standard in other areas.
            But fighting corruption entails more than just good procurement procedures (avoiding, for instance, single source non competitive bidding). Many other policies and procedures can be enacted that reduce the incentive for corruption. For example, some tax systems are more corruption-resistant than others, because they curtail the discretionary authority of tax officials.
            Third, the World Bank’s primary responsibility to fight poverty, which means that when it plans to assist a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to figure out how to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. In some cases, this may entail delivering assistance through non-governmental organizations. But seldom will it be the case that best response is simply to be away.
            Finally, while developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, there is much that the West can do to help. At a minimum, western governments and corporations should not be complicit. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or someone acting on its behalf.
            Indeed, one reason for the so called “natural resource curse”-the fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do as well as resource poor countries-is the prevalence of corruption , too often added and abetted by companies that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices. The US under President Jimmy Carter made an important contribution in passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made bribery by American companies anywhere in the world illegal. The OECD’s convention on bribery was another step in the right direction. Making all payments to governments transparent would bring further progress, and western governments could encourage this simply by tying this requirements to tax deductibility.
            It is equally important to address bank secrecy, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt dictators’ wives a safe haven for their funds. In August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks on America, the US government vetoed an OECD effort to limit secret bank accounts. While the government has since reversed its stance on bank secrecy for terrorists, it has not done so for corrupt officials. A strong stand by the World Bank would enhance its credibility in the war on corruption.
            Those who criticize the Bank’s stance on corruption do not so because they favour corruption. Some critics worry about corruption in the corruption agenda itself, that the fight will be used as a “cover” for cutting aid to countries that displease the US administration. Such concerns have found resonance in the seeming incongruity of the Bank’s tough talk on corruption and simultaneous plans to expand lending to Iraq. No one is like to certify that Iraq is corruption free-or even ranks low on corruption internationally.
            The main strident criticism, however comes from those who worry that the Bank is straying away from its mandate. Of course, the Bank must do everything that it can to ensure that its money is well spent, which means fighting both corruption and incompetence.
            But money itself will not solve all problems and a single-minded focus on fighting, corruption will not bring development. On the contrary, it might merely divert attention from other issues of no less important for those struggling to lift themselves out of poverty.

What the author meant by so called “natural resource curse” in his argument to fight against corruption?
I. Countries poor in natural resources )e.g. fossil fuel, minerals, etc.) are necessarily poor and it becomes “natural curse” for these countries. Such countries become victims of corruption.
II. Oil-rich countries in the Middle East support corruption in allocating oil exploration contracts and as such natural resource becomes a curse for these countries.
III.The fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do well as resource poor countries, is the prevalence of corruption, too often aided and abetted by countries that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

            At its recent annual meeting, World Bank officials spoke extensively about corruption. It is an understandable concern: money that the Bank lends to developing countries that ends up in secret bank accounts or finance contactors’ luxurious lifestyles leaves a country more indebted, not more prosperous.
            James Wolfensohn, the Bank’s pervious president and the author were widely credited with putting corruption on the Bank’s agenda, against opponents who regarded corruption as a political issue, not an economic one, and thus outside the Bank’s mandate. Our research showed systematic relationships between corruption and economic growth, which allowed us to pursue this critical issue.
            But the World Bank would do well to keep four things in mind as it takes up the fight. First, corruption takes many forms, so a war on corruption has to be fought on many fronts. You can’t fight the diversion of small amounts of money by weak and poor countries while ignoring the massive diversion of public resources into private hands of the sort that marked, say, Russia under Boris Yeltsin.
            In some countries, overt corruption occurs primarily through campaign contributions that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours. Smaller scale corruption is bad, but systematic corruption of political process can have even greater costs. Campaign contributions and lobbying that lead to rapid privatization of utilities-before appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place, and in a manner that produces only a few bidders-cans impede developments, even without direct kickbacks to government officials.
            Life is never black and white. Just as there is no “one size fits all” policy for economic development, there is no such policy for fighting corruption. The response for fighting needs to be as complex and variegated as corruption itself.
            Second, it’s fine for the World Bank to deliver anti-corruption summons. But policies, procedures, and institutions are what matter. In fact, the Bank’s procurement procedures are generally viewed around the world as a model to be admired. Indeed, some countries with large dollar reserves-hardly in need of World Bank credit-borrowed from the Bank at far higher interest rates than they were getting from the US, believing that these procedures would help ensure high quality projects free of corruption and become standard in other areas.
            But fighting corruption entails more than just good procurement procedures (avoiding, for instance, single source non competitive bidding). Many other policies and procedures can be enacted that reduce the incentive for corruption. For example, some tax systems are more corruption-resistant than others, because they curtail the discretionary authority of tax officials.
            Third, the World Bank’s primary responsibility to fight poverty, which means that when it plans to assist a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to figure out how to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. In some cases, this may entail delivering assistance through non-governmental organizations. But seldom will it be the case that best response is simply to be away.
            Finally, while developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, there is much that the West can do to help. At a minimum, western governments and corporations should not be complicit. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or someone acting on its behalf.
            Indeed, one reason for the so called “natural resource curse”-the fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do as well as resource poor countries-is the prevalence of corruption , too often added and abetted by companies that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices. The US under President Jimmy Carter made an important contribution in passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made bribery by American companies anywhere in the world illegal. The OECD’s convention on bribery was another step in the right direction. Making all payments to governments transparent would bring further progress, and western governments could encourage this simply by tying this requirements to tax deductibility.
            It is equally important to address bank secrecy, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt dictators’ wives a safe haven for their funds. In August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks on America, the US government vetoed an OECD effort to limit secret bank accounts. While the government has since reversed its stance on bank secrecy for terrorists, it has not done so for corrupt officials. A strong stand by the World Bank would enhance its credibility in the war on corruption.
            Those who criticize the Bank’s stance on corruption do not so because they favour corruption. Some critics worry about corruption in the corruption agenda itself, that the fight will be used as a “cover” for cutting aid to countries that displease the US administration. Such concerns have found resonance in the seeming incongruity of the Bank’s tough talk on corruption and simultaneous plans to expand lending to Iraq. No one is like to certify that Iraq is corruption free-or even ranks low on corruption internationally.
            The main strident criticism, however comes from those who worry that the Bank is straying away from its mandate. Of course, the Bank must do everything that it can to ensure that its money is well spent, which means fighting both corruption and incompetence.
            But money itself will not solve all problems and a single-minded focus on fighting, corruption will not bring development. On the contrary, it might merely divert attention from other issues of no less important for those struggling to lift themselves out of poverty.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author's main thrust of argument is

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

            At its recent annual meeting, World Bank officials spoke extensively about corruption. It is an understandable concern: money that the Bank lends to developing countries that ends up in secret bank accounts or finance contactors’ luxurious lifestyles leaves a country more indebted, not more prosperous.
            James Wolfensohn, the Bank’s pervious president and the author were widely credited with putting corruption on the Bank’s agenda, against opponents who regarded corruption as a political issue, not an economic one, and thus outside the Bank’s mandate. Our research showed systematic relationships between corruption and economic growth, which allowed us to pursue this critical issue.
            But the World Bank would do well to keep four things in mind as it takes up the fight. First, corruption takes many forms, so a war on corruption has to be fought on many fronts. You can’t fight the diversion of small amounts of money by weak and poor countries while ignoring the massive diversion of public resources into private hands of the sort that marked, say, Russia under Boris Yeltsin.
            In some countries, overt corruption occurs primarily through campaign contributions that oblige politicians to repay major donors with favours. Smaller scale corruption is bad, but systematic corruption of political process can have even greater costs. Campaign contributions and lobbying that lead to rapid privatization of utilities-before appropriate regulatory frameworks are in place, and in a manner that produces only a few bidders-cans impede developments, even without direct kickbacks to government officials.
            Life is never black and white. Just as there is no “one size fits all” policy for economic development, there is no such policy for fighting corruption. The response for fighting needs to be as complex and variegated as corruption itself.
            Second, it’s fine for the World Bank to deliver anti-corruption summons. But policies, procedures, and institutions are what matter. In fact, the Bank’s procurement procedures are generally viewed around the world as a model to be admired. Indeed, some countries with large dollar reserves-hardly in need of World Bank credit-borrowed from the Bank at far higher interest rates than they were getting from the US, believing that these procedures would help ensure high quality projects free of corruption and become standard in other areas.
            But fighting corruption entails more than just good procurement procedures (avoiding, for instance, single source non competitive bidding). Many other policies and procedures can be enacted that reduce the incentive for corruption. For example, some tax systems are more corruption-resistant than others, because they curtail the discretionary authority of tax officials.
            Third, the World Bank’s primary responsibility to fight poverty, which means that when it plans to assist a poor country plagued with corruption, its challenge is to figure out how to ensure that its own money is not tainted and gets to projects and people that need it. In some cases, this may entail delivering assistance through non-governmental organizations. But seldom will it be the case that best response is simply to be away.
            Finally, while developing countries must take responsibility for rooting out corruption, there is much that the West can do to help. At a minimum, western governments and corporations should not be complicit. Every bribe that is taken has a payer, and too often the bribe payer is a corporation from an advanced industrial country or someone acting on its behalf.
            Indeed, one reason for the so called “natural resource curse”-the fact that resource rich countries do not, on average, do as well as resource poor countries-is the prevalence of corruption , too often added and abetted by companies that would like to get the resources they sell at discount prices. The US under President Jimmy Carter made an important contribution in passing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which made bribery by American companies anywhere in the world illegal. The OECD’s convention on bribery was another step in the right direction. Making all payments to governments transparent would bring further progress, and western governments could encourage this simply by tying this requirements to tax deductibility.
            It is equally important to address bank secrecy, which facilitates corruption by providing corrupt dictators’ wives a safe haven for their funds. In August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks on America, the US government vetoed an OECD effort to limit secret bank accounts. While the government has since reversed its stance on bank secrecy for terrorists, it has not done so for corrupt officials. A strong stand by the World Bank would enhance its credibility in the war on corruption.
            Those who criticize the Bank’s stance on corruption do not so because they favour corruption. Some critics worry about corruption in the corruption agenda itself, that the fight will be used as a “cover” for cutting aid to countries that displease the US administration. Such concerns have found resonance in the seeming incongruity of the Bank’s tough talk on corruption and simultaneous plans to expand lending to Iraq. No one is like to certify that Iraq is corruption free-or even ranks low on corruption internationally.
            The main strident criticism, however comes from those who worry that the Bank is straying away from its mandate. Of course, the Bank must do everything that it can to ensure that its money is well spent, which means fighting both corruption and incompetence.
            But money itself will not solve all problems and a single-minded focus on fighting, corruption will not bring development. On the contrary, it might merely divert attention from other issues of no less important for those struggling to lift themselves out of poverty.