Reading Comprehension

Wetlands are a source of

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows:

Wetlands are indeed the vital link between water and land. It is the collective term for marshes, swamps, and bogs, found along the edges of streams, rivers, lakes and coastlines. Wetlands can be found in nearly every country and climatic zone. Indeed wetlands are found from the Tundra to the Tropics and on every continent. They are so varied. Some are wet all the time. Some wetlands are large and some are very small. Many have been altered by human activities such as farming, building of roads, dams and towns. Wetlands are regarded wastelands sources of mosquitoes, flies, snakes and diseases. People had negative views about them and they eliminated them. Original wetlands have been destroyed; some of them have been converted into farmland, some others filled by industrial wastes.
Wetlands vary widely because of topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry and vegetation. Wetlands are the coastal mangrove forests, lake marshes and seasonally flooded lands along river courses. Palm swamps, sea grass beds, salt flats, and coral reefs are common wetlands. They are of two types: tidal wetlands and non-tidal (inland) wetlands. Tidal wetlands are found along the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaskan and Gulf Coasts. The salt water and fluctuating water levels create a difficult environment. Some plants have adapted to the environment of saline conditions. Inland wetlands are common in the margins of lakes and rivers. They include wet meadows dominated by herbaceous plants, swamps and shrubs and tall trees. The prolonged presence of water favours the growth of specially adapted plants.
States and tribes play a critical role in the protection and management of wetlands. With the growth of education, people have started understanding ecological processes and their attitude towards wetlands have changed. They have recognised the ecological significance of the wetlands; they are a source of valuable natural wealth. They help regulating water levels within watersheds; reduce flood and storm damages; and provide fish and wildlife habitat. They support hunting, fishing and other recreational activities.

Wetlands are the most productive ecosystems in the world. They have been described as biological supermarkets as they provide great volumes of food and attract many animal species. A variety of insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish and mammals are found in these wetlands. Many species of birds, animals, rely on wetlands for food, water and shelter. The microbes, insects and wildlife are part of global cycles for water, nitrogen, and sulphur. They store carbon within their plant communities and thus help to moderate climate conditions.

What is the prediction of the skeptics about space tourism?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows:

Dennis Tito surprised the world when he paid $20 million to the Russian space agency to enjoy the adventure of the space flight. Some reporters denounced his profligacy while others eulogised his adventurous spirit. Whatever be the social or moral constraints, his private visit created sensation in the world. Many others also expressed their willingness to visit space and soon the agency got fully booked until 2009. Space tourism was once considered a dream of the lunatics. Today, however, it is no longer an outlandish vision from the realm of science fiction. The days are not far off when it would be a lucrative industry in the world of business. Several space tourism companies are planning to build suborbital vehicles and orbital cities within the next two decades. Very shortly, orbital flights will depart from many different airports and orbital facilities will grow, making space tourism popular and affordable. As in the case of tourism on Earth, there will be a small high-end segment for the rich, but the greater majority of space tourists will be middle class customers. Like any other business, once the industry gets started, it will develop progressively. It is now passing through high priced pioneering phase. After some years the prices are bound to get slashed as the number of tourists rise.

There are conservatives who say developing space tourism is very difficult and will take a long time. They also express their apprehensions and ask why would anyone want to go to orbit? There is nothing there, no air, no shops; it is just cold, dark nothing. But for those who have been to orbit, there are spectacular scenes of wonder, mystery and romance. In the space, stars do not twinkle, they are much brighter and closer and their colours are clearer.

Some companies are planning to build hotels in the space that could act as temporary space stations for the space tourists. The service will be nearer to adventure travel and orbital accommodation will be safe. Hotels in orbit would offer two unique experiences, splendid romantic view of the Earth and space, and the endless entertainment of living in zero gravity. It is a mind boggling experience of thrill and awe to look at the Earth from space and to enjoy weightlessness. Space walking will be another thrilling experience. The small gravitational pull created by the rotating space city would allow space tourists to walk around and function normally within the structure. Those who wish to stay longer in space can become passenger workers. Many producers of the Hollywood film industry are planning to shoot films in space; the space criminal stories, the space love stories will add new flavor and are likely to be box office hits.

Ironically few people are aware of how much work has been done to show that space tourism is a realistic goal and how the private companies are seriously engaged to boost space tourism industry. Space is no longer confined to research or military activities and the day is not far off when space tourism would become popular like the aviation industry; and equally affordable. It is estimated that by 2020 the space tourism will be as affordable as aviation flights.

The author is mainly concerned with

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

It came as a shock to learn that the world’s cattle population of 1,530 million plays a bigger role in effecting global warming than all of the world’s cars taken together. This is no gimmick; a United Nations report not only makes such a shocking claim, but also backs it up with the requisite data.

Cattle also supplement the depletion of our forests and water bodies; this is mostly the case in developing countries where the number of cattle per human is high. The high proportion of cattle in developing countries is because the people there are dependent on cattle more than their counterparts in the west. As the population of the world multiplies at alarming rates, the stress on natural resources increases manifold. Dwindling of the natural resources is a prominent concern for all.

This United Nations report has ominous signs, especially for India, as the country proudly says that it has 18 per cent of the world’s cattle. Even with the presence of sacred and holy attachments towards cattle, their numbers are diminishing. Vastly considered a taboo, government figures indicate that conscious culling of cattle is widespread all through the sub-continent. This, of course, has lead to a steady decrease in the number of cattle. A big portion of the total cattle population in such countries is old, sterile and is left to die of hunger. When they wander onto a farm, they are mercilessly beaten. Some lucky or unlucky ones, depending on your perspective, die a peaceful death from poisonous substances or after asphyxiating from plastic bags. The carcasses are of no use and are left on their own.

Despite of all the facts which advocate the reduction in the number of cattles, it is quite improbable that we will see any policies, such as a "flatulence tax" put into effect by the politicians; policies which may help both the cattle and humans in the long run.

Which among the following can be derived from the passage? I. Crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides were primarily responsible for the suicides committed by the farmers. II. The farmers who shifted from food crops to cash crops were the only ones who were not affected. III. A low germination rate of seed added to the woes of the farmers.

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

The author is LEAST likely to agree with the fact that

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

RELENTLESS

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

AVOWED

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

The onset of economic liberalisation in India

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

LUCRATIVE

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

The major source of income from the real estate market is

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

HORRENDOUS

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

The author is definitely making a case for

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

PHENOMENAL

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Which of the following can be derived from the passage?

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

Directions: For this question, select the best of the answer from the choices given.

In the film, ‘Jurassic Park’, scientists create living dinosaurs by replicating dinosaur DNA found inside an insect that had bitten a dinosaur and was then trapped in amber. Although, such a feat has not yet been accomplished, one day modern science will probably succeed in recreating prehistoric creatures in a similar manner. All of the following assumptions underlie the conclusion of the passage above except that