Reading Comprehension

What according to the passage is the crux of the matter?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Without getting carried away by the wide-eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what’s more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot-free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water-tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in-depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub-prime mortgage quicksand but a spin-off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub-prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process. The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip-off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant. The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don’t have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something’s got to give in here.

The author's stance on the possibility of financial institutions being found guilty can best be described as

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Without getting carried away by the wide-eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what’s more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot-free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water-tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in-depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub-prime mortgage quicksand but a spin-off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub-prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process. The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip-off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant. The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don’t have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something’s got to give in here.

All of the following, in context of the passage, are true except:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Without getting carried away by the wide-eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what’s more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot-free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water-tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in-depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub-prime mortgage quicksand but a spin-off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub-prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process. The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip-off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant. The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don’t have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something’s got to give in here.

What according to the passage is not the reason why companies spend so much on advertising?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The target audience is likely to switch channels in an attempt to whittle away the time while waiting for their favorite program to resume. Even if the ad does reach the desired target audience, the message conveyed comes and departs mostly unnoticed and many people would have trouble recalling an ad that they had seen just two minutes ago. Companies however continue to spend billions of dollars every year in an effort to attract buyers. Instead of paying massive endorsement fees to celebrities to promote a brand and spending a pretty penny on conceptualizing and creating ads, would it not make more sense for the behemoth corporations to save that money and pass on a large share back to the consumers as loyalty benefits? A satisfied user is often the best publicity and companies can simply divide the amount of money they are going to spend on publicity of a product by the expected number of units they are going to sell in that year and share the average expected per unit savings with the consumers. Even if the companies decide to keep a substantial portion of money saved from advertising for themselves and directly pass on the rest to consumers as an across the board price cutback, it can help the consumers to buy more for less in these times of tight liquidity.
Companies keep spending so much money on advertising because they realize that the subconscious mind is working even when the conscious mind tunes out the message. Once the subconscious learns something, that information gets stored in the vast labyrinths of the neural passages that are present in our brains and like a burr beneath the saddle of a horse, the message will keep irritating our subconscious, egging us on to buy the proffered product or service. Also, with the customer being constantly bombarded by inducements for buying, a vacillating mind might just get seduced into pulling out the credit card. Another reason could be that the advertisers and advertising agencies are relying on a collective message that they send out to teeming humanity of equating material possessions with happiness. Another startling input could be that the promoter knows that only ten percent of advertising converts into a sale and therefore the buyers end up paying for the message that the remaining 90% did not heed. In this cat and mouse game of one trying to tempt another into buying, perhaps it is the advertising agency that has the last laugh - their product is selling even if the advertiser’s is not and the fall guy for the entire con game is the consumer who is paying for it.

With reference to the passage, which of the following would be true? I. The buyer is fickle and repeated advertisement is the only way to draw his attention. II. Unavailability of spare funds requires extra effort to make the customer loosen his purse strings. III. More and more buyers feel that joy and pleasure and possessions are two sides of a coin.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The target audience is likely to switch channels in an attempt to whittle away the time while waiting for their favorite program to resume. Even if the ad does reach the desired target audience, the message conveyed comes and departs mostly unnoticed and many people would have trouble recalling an ad that they had seen just two minutes ago. Companies however continue to spend billions of dollars every year in an effort to attract buyers. Instead of paying massive endorsement fees to celebrities to promote a brand and spending a pretty penny on conceptualizing and creating ads, would it not make more sense for the behemoth corporations to save that money and pass on a large share back to the consumers as loyalty benefits? A satisfied user is often the best publicity and companies can simply divide the amount of money they are going to spend on publicity of a product by the expected number of units they are going to sell in that year and share the average expected per unit savings with the consumers. Even if the companies decide to keep a substantial portion of money saved from advertising for themselves and directly pass on the rest to consumers as an across the board price cutback, it can help the consumers to buy more for less in these times of tight liquidity.
Companies keep spending so much money on advertising because they realize that the subconscious mind is working even when the conscious mind tunes out the message. Once the subconscious learns something, that information gets stored in the vast labyrinths of the neural passages that are present in our brains and like a burr beneath the saddle of a horse, the message will keep irritating our subconscious, egging us on to buy the proffered product or service. Also, with the customer being constantly bombarded by inducements for buying, a vacillating mind might just get seduced into pulling out the credit card. Another reason could be that the advertisers and advertising agencies are relying on a collective message that they send out to teeming humanity of equating material possessions with happiness. Another startling input could be that the promoter knows that only ten percent of advertising converts into a sale and therefore the buyers end up paying for the message that the remaining 90% did not heed. In this cat and mouse game of one trying to tempt another into buying, perhaps it is the advertising agency that has the last laugh - their product is selling even if the advertiser’s is not and the fall guy for the entire con game is the consumer who is paying for it.

What is the relation between the two paragraphs of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The target audience is likely to switch channels in an attempt to whittle away the time while waiting for their favorite program to resume. Even if the ad does reach the desired target audience, the message conveyed comes and departs mostly unnoticed and many people would have trouble recalling an ad that they had seen just two minutes ago. Companies however continue to spend billions of dollars every year in an effort to attract buyers. Instead of paying massive endorsement fees to celebrities to promote a brand and spending a pretty penny on conceptualizing and creating ads, would it not make more sense for the behemoth corporations to save that money and pass on a large share back to the consumers as loyalty benefits? A satisfied user is often the best publicity and companies can simply divide the amount of money they are going to spend on publicity of a product by the expected number of units they are going to sell in that year and share the average expected per unit savings with the consumers. Even if the companies decide to keep a substantial portion of money saved from advertising for themselves and directly pass on the rest to consumers as an across the board price cutback, it can help the consumers to buy more for less in these times of tight liquidity.
Companies keep spending so much money on advertising because they realize that the subconscious mind is working even when the conscious mind tunes out the message. Once the subconscious learns something, that information gets stored in the vast labyrinths of the neural passages that are present in our brains and like a burr beneath the saddle of a horse, the message will keep irritating our subconscious, egging us on to buy the proffered product or service. Also, with the customer being constantly bombarded by inducements for buying, a vacillating mind might just get seduced into pulling out the credit card. Another reason could be that the advertisers and advertising agencies are relying on a collective message that they send out to teeming humanity of equating material possessions with happiness. Another startling input could be that the promoter knows that only ten percent of advertising converts into a sale and therefore the buyers end up paying for the message that the remaining 90% did not heed. In this cat and mouse game of one trying to tempt another into buying, perhaps it is the advertising agency that has the last laugh - their product is selling even if the advertiser’s is not and the fall guy for the entire con game is the consumer who is paying for it.

Which of the following situations would most discomfort a mathematician?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

The tone of the author is

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

The point that the author is trying to make is that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

What is the structure of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Some scholars believe that the Neanderthals died out at the hands of the more graceful, more intelligent and more numerous Homo sapiens. These scholars also seem to take an almost perverted pleasure in projecting the beetle browed Neanderthals as being oafish and dim witted, and go on to propose that the modern humans survived because of their superior mental prowess. However, recent research suggests that the Neanderthals had a brain size that rivaled modern humans, and were physically fitter too. Neanderthals are believed to have been present in Europe and in a large part of Eurasia while all of the Homo sapiens are believed to have evolved from ancestors that came mainly out of Central Africa. One does feel like saying Hail Hitler to all the racists, Ku Klux Klan members, and the assorted White supremacists at that. If populations of both these races were not very sizeable, as is a reason to believe, it leads one to the belief that it could not have been a struggle for resources or land that would have lead to a clash between them
Another theory contends that the Neanderthals were the victims of a rapid change in their environs. It is hypothesized that Europe was suddenly overrun with several volcanic eruptions and perhaps the earth also went through a gelid period and both these reasons combined with other reasons to cause the obliteration of the Neanderthals. The theory contends that the erstwhile denizens were caught off guard and that even though they were quite accustomed to the extremely cold environs of the continent at that time, the magnitude and the sheer scale of the metamorphosis was too extreme to handle. Neanderthals were also let down by their societal makeup. All members of the society were involved in hunting big and mid sized game, and that activity resulted in a lot of falls and breaks. As there was no division of labor that could have resulted in women and children trapping small game and otherwise be engaged in innocuous pursuits, there was no insulation for their children or for the procreators of the race and that in itself played a preeminent part in the untimely demise of the race. There is always a serpent in paradise and even this explanation has unsurprisingly found its fair share of detractors. The naysayer tribe points to the fact that there is no credible evidence that there was a spurt in volcanic activity concomitantly in the region that the Neanderthals were supposed to have originated from and mostly lived and hunted in.

What can be determined about the turn of events of the era described in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Some scholars believe that the Neanderthals died out at the hands of the more graceful, more intelligent and more numerous Homo sapiens. These scholars also seem to take an almost perverted pleasure in projecting the beetle browed Neanderthals as being oafish and dim witted, and go on to propose that the modern humans survived because of their superior mental prowess. However, recent research suggests that the Neanderthals had a brain size that rivaled modern humans, and were physically fitter too. Neanderthals are believed to have been present in Europe and in a large part of Eurasia while all of the Homo sapiens are believed to have evolved from ancestors that came mainly out of Central Africa. One does feel like saying Hail Hitler to all the racists, Ku Klux Klan members, and the assorted White supremacists at that. If populations of both these races were not very sizeable, as is a reason to believe, it leads one to the belief that it could not have been a struggle for resources or land that would have lead to a clash between them
Another theory contends that the Neanderthals were the victims of a rapid change in their environs. It is hypothesized that Europe was suddenly overrun with several volcanic eruptions and perhaps the earth also went through a gelid period and both these reasons combined with other reasons to cause the obliteration of the Neanderthals. The theory contends that the erstwhile denizens were caught off guard and that even though they were quite accustomed to the extremely cold environs of the continent at that time, the magnitude and the sheer scale of the metamorphosis was too extreme to handle. Neanderthals were also let down by their societal makeup. All members of the society were involved in hunting big and mid sized game, and that activity resulted in a lot of falls and breaks. As there was no division of labor that could have resulted in women and children trapping small game and otherwise be engaged in innocuous pursuits, there was no insulation for their children or for the procreators of the race and that in itself played a preeminent part in the untimely demise of the race. There is always a serpent in paradise and even this explanation has unsurprisingly found its fair share of detractors. The naysayer tribe points to the fact that there is no credible evidence that there was a spurt in volcanic activity concomitantly in the region that the Neanderthals were supposed to have originated from and mostly lived and hunted in.

The author of the passage is most likely

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The American civil war, the Indian independence struggle, the end of South Africa’s apartheid, all began with dissatisfaction with the status quo. India, with its huge cultural diversity, has always been susceptible to brewing dissatisfactions of various hues. According to current figures, anywhere between 150 and 250 districts, in more than fifteen states, are affected by Maoist violence. On the surface, one would feel that it is again an ideological fight but scratching further, one would discover that ideology has been spawned by the force of circumstance and most of the players, inhabiting nearly forty percent of India’s territory, are just caught up in a maelstrom of events and consequences beyond their control.
That the Maoist movement has managed to find a broad based appeal is symptomatic of a systemic malaise within the nation, its administration and the society. Instead of trying to find fault with the rebels, the country will be better served by those who try to find the reasons for its spread. And let us not give undue importance to the rabble rousing, self-serving ideologues but let us talk about the common citizen, who has no desire to take sides with any ideology and just wants to live a life of peace and plenty. In the last sixty years or so since independence the quality of life of the ordinary citizen has also improved considerably. Many Indians are living a life of comfort and access to resources that their predecessor generations might not even have thought possible. The benefits of progress however have failed to reach a vast majority of the so called Maoist infested populace and herein lies the rub.
A strange dichotomy is that the problem is endemic in some of the most natural resource rich states in the union but it is the denizens of these states that are struggling to find two square meals a day. The nation’s progress has bypassed most of them barring a few oasis of prosperity where a few cities have managed to keep up with the mainstream progress. In a land where caste barriers and resulting discrimination are nearly as rigid and rampant as they were centuries ago, and economic empowerment is lopsided, it is not difficult to find reasons for disenchantment with the democratic, socialist republic. For immense personal gains, corrupt politicians and opportunistic bureaucrats, colluding with greedy corporations have been exploiting the abundance of natural resources without sharing the spoils with the people of the land. The tribals, whose culture and existence is being threatened by the mining activities have been forced to take to the gun when there has been no restitution from the governance. Giving this struggle the name of clash of ideologies is unnecessary glamorization of the issue. Even if their struggle against state oppression succeeds in formation of an independent small nation, the liberators will turn oppressors and the wheel will have turned a full circle for the masses.

Which of the following statements is the author likely to least agree with?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The American civil war, the Indian independence struggle, the end of South Africa’s apartheid, all began with dissatisfaction with the status quo. India, with its huge cultural diversity, has always been susceptible to brewing dissatisfactions of various hues. According to current figures, anywhere between 150 and 250 districts, in more than fifteen states, are affected by Maoist violence. On the surface, one would feel that it is again an ideological fight but scratching further, one would discover that ideology has been spawned by the force of circumstance and most of the players, inhabiting nearly forty percent of India’s territory, are just caught up in a maelstrom of events and consequences beyond their control.
That the Maoist movement has managed to find a broad based appeal is symptomatic of a systemic malaise within the nation, its administration and the society. Instead of trying to find fault with the rebels, the country will be better served by those who try to find the reasons for its spread. And let us not give undue importance to the rabble rousing, self-serving ideologues but let us talk about the common citizen, who has no desire to take sides with any ideology and just wants to live a life of peace and plenty. In the last sixty years or so since independence the quality of life of the ordinary citizen has also improved considerably. Many Indians are living a life of comfort and access to resources that their predecessor generations might not even have thought possible. The benefits of progress however have failed to reach a vast majority of the so called Maoist infested populace and herein lies the rub.
A strange dichotomy is that the problem is endemic in some of the most natural resource rich states in the union but it is the denizens of these states that are struggling to find two square meals a day. The nation’s progress has bypassed most of them barring a few oasis of prosperity where a few cities have managed to keep up with the mainstream progress. In a land where caste barriers and resulting discrimination are nearly as rigid and rampant as they were centuries ago, and economic empowerment is lopsided, it is not difficult to find reasons for disenchantment with the democratic, socialist republic. For immense personal gains, corrupt politicians and opportunistic bureaucrats, colluding with greedy corporations have been exploiting the abundance of natural resources without sharing the spoils with the people of the land. The tribals, whose culture and existence is being threatened by the mining activities have been forced to take to the gun when there has been no restitution from the governance. Giving this struggle the name of clash of ideologies is unnecessary glamorization of the issue. Even if their struggle against state oppression succeeds in formation of an independent small nation, the liberators will turn oppressors and the wheel will have turned a full circle for the masses.

What message does the author intend to communicate when he states, “Giving this struggle the name of clash of ideologies is unnecessary glamorization of the issue”?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The American civil war, the Indian independence struggle, the end of South Africa’s apartheid, all began with dissatisfaction with the status quo. India, with its huge cultural diversity, has always been susceptible to brewing dissatisfactions of various hues. According to current figures, anywhere between 150 and 250 districts, in more than fifteen states, are affected by Maoist violence. On the surface, one would feel that it is again an ideological fight but scratching further, one would discover that ideology has been spawned by the force of circumstance and most of the players, inhabiting nearly forty percent of India’s territory, are just caught up in a maelstrom of events and consequences beyond their control.
That the Maoist movement has managed to find a broad based appeal is symptomatic of a systemic malaise within the nation, its administration and the society. Instead of trying to find fault with the rebels, the country will be better served by those who try to find the reasons for its spread. And let us not give undue importance to the rabble rousing, self-serving ideologues but let us talk about the common citizen, who has no desire to take sides with any ideology and just wants to live a life of peace and plenty. In the last sixty years or so since independence the quality of life of the ordinary citizen has also improved considerably. Many Indians are living a life of comfort and access to resources that their predecessor generations might not even have thought possible. The benefits of progress however have failed to reach a vast majority of the so called Maoist infested populace and herein lies the rub.
A strange dichotomy is that the problem is endemic in some of the most natural resource rich states in the union but it is the denizens of these states that are struggling to find two square meals a day. The nation’s progress has bypassed most of them barring a few oasis of prosperity where a few cities have managed to keep up with the mainstream progress. In a land where caste barriers and resulting discrimination are nearly as rigid and rampant as they were centuries ago, and economic empowerment is lopsided, it is not difficult to find reasons for disenchantment with the democratic, socialist republic. For immense personal gains, corrupt politicians and opportunistic bureaucrats, colluding with greedy corporations have been exploiting the abundance of natural resources without sharing the spoils with the people of the land. The tribals, whose culture and existence is being threatened by the mining activities have been forced to take to the gun when there has been no restitution from the governance. Giving this struggle the name of clash of ideologies is unnecessary glamorization of the issue. Even if their struggle against state oppression succeeds in formation of an independent small nation, the liberators will turn oppressors and the wheel will have turned a full circle for the masses.

The author seems to be making a case for

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Things are continually happening all around us that we see with but half an eye. They are in the “fringe” of consciousness, and we deliberately ignore them. Many more things come to us in the form of sense-impressions that clamorously assail our sense-organs, but no effort of the will is needed to ignore them. We are absolutely impervious to them and unconscious of them because by the selection of our life interests we have closed the doors against them. In either case, whether in the “fringe" of consciousness or entirely outside of consciousness, these unperceived sensations will be found to be sensory images that have no connection with the present subject of thought. They therefore attract, and we spare them, no part of our attention.
Just as each of our individual sense-organs selects from the multitude of ether vibrations constantly beating upon the surface of the body only those waves to the velocity of which it is attuned, so each one of us as an integral personality selects from the stream of sensory experiences only those particular objects of attention that are in some way related to the present or habitual trend of thought.