Reading Comprehension

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

SURGE

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Why, according to the author, may the electric cars survive despite all their current deficiencies?

A. Electric cars will be subsidised and thus, would prove to be cost efficient to the buyers. B. An increasing number of grids are shifting to alternative forms of energy production. C. In the future, incentives would be provided to those driving electric cars. D. Pollution caused by the electric cars is far less as compared to the fossil fuel driven cars.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Why does the author fear that the electric cars may eventually not be very eco-friendly?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Which of the following may not have any role in proposing/revising/launching/delivering or being a stake-holder role in the scheme?

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

National Housing Bank (NHB) came out with a reverse mortgage product four years back. The idea was to give periodic income to senior citizens. Why did that scheme never take off?
I won’t say the scheme never took off. Probably, it did not meet expectations, which were too high. It was essentially for liquefying the existing debt asset for the senior citizen. All over the world, it is a niche programme and not a mass programme, where everybody can get into it. In India, there are cultural issues. There are senior citizens who have told me that their children treat them badly, but still want their house to go them. Therefore, the reverse mortgage product appeals only to some people. Those who don’t have children or who are single, or whose children have totally dissociated from them and settled abroad, or who need it for a short period.
Yes, it (performance of old product) is a bit disappointing, but overall it is not too bad. In our old product, we gave loans worth about Rs. 1,800 crore. There are many people who don’t have a house, we can’t cater to them. So the market itself is somewhat restricted.
Is awareness also a problem?
Yes, to some extent buy awareness among senior citizens has improved significantly. So there could be some issues of delivery; banks may not be very aggressively delivering this. So they (senior citizens) may not be aware of the nuances of the product. Also, there is no special incentive for senior citizens; banks charge normal interest rate. Then, the market is limited.
Earlier, the problem was that the maximum tenor available was 20 years, under the new annuity scheme, the term can be up to a person’s lifetime.
How is the new reverse mortgage product going to shape up after annuity has been integrated with it? How has the response been so far?
People are still trying to understand; the annuity schemes are a little complicated. We are getting a lot of enquiries and sanctions have also taken place but not much.
There is some confusion about how income from the new reverser mortgage product will be taxed. So, will other banks launch the product?
There is no confusion. About 23-25 banks were already offering the old product. Today, both schemes are available. It is the choice of the customer. In the old product, income is exempt in the hands of senior citizens. In the annuity product, it is not exempt since the amount is higher and for lifetime.
But under the Income-tax Act, any annuity is taxed. What we plan to do is to approach the government before next year’s budget to make annuity under this new reverse mortgage scheme tax-free since the old product is also tax-free. There is no difference between the two products, except that we have structured it as annuity to take care of the longevity risk which the insurance company can take. But, the fundamental natural of the loan is the same as loan against property. It is getting taxed because of the word annuity.

Which of the following is essential for availing the scheme?

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

National Housing Bank (NHB) came out with a reverse mortgage product four years back. The idea was to give periodic income to senior citizens. Why did that scheme never take off?
I won’t say the scheme never took off. Probably, it did not meet expectations, which were too high. It was essentially for liquefying the existing debt asset for the senior citizen. All over the world, it is a niche programme and not a mass programme, where everybody can get into it. In India, there are cultural issues. There are senior citizens who have told me that their children treat them badly, but still want their house to go them. Therefore, the reverse mortgage product appeals only to some people. Those who don’t have children or who are single, or whose children have totally dissociated from them and settled abroad, or who need it for a short period.
Yes, it (performance of old product) is a bit disappointing, but overall it is not too bad. In our old product, we gave loans worth about Rs. 1,800 crore. There are many people who don’t have a house, we can’t cater to them. So the market itself is somewhat restricted.
Is awareness also a problem?
Yes, to some extent buy awareness among senior citizens has improved significantly. So there could be some issues of delivery; banks may not be very aggressively delivering this. So they (senior citizens) may not be aware of the nuances of the product. Also, there is no special incentive for senior citizens; banks charge normal interest rate. Then, the market is limited.
Earlier, the problem was that the maximum tenor available was 20 years, under the new annuity scheme, the term can be up to a person’s lifetime.
How is the new reverse mortgage product going to shape up after annuity has been integrated with it? How has the response been so far?
People are still trying to understand; the annuity schemes are a little complicated. We are getting a lot of enquiries and sanctions have also taken place but not much.
There is some confusion about how income from the new reverser mortgage product will be taxed. So, will other banks launch the product?
There is no confusion. About 23-25 banks were already offering the old product. Today, both schemes are available. It is the choice of the customer. In the old product, income is exempt in the hands of senior citizens. In the annuity product, it is not exempt since the amount is higher and for lifetime.
But under the Income-tax Act, any annuity is taxed. What we plan to do is to approach the government before next year’s budget to make annuity under this new reverse mortgage scheme tax-free since the old product is also tax-free. There is no difference between the two products, except that we have structured it as annuity to take care of the longevity risk which the insurance company can take. But, the fundamental natural of the loan is the same as loan against property. It is getting taxed because of the word annuity.

Which of the following can be inferred?

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

National Housing Bank (NHB) came out with a reverse mortgage product four years back. The idea was to give periodic income to senior citizens. Why did that scheme never take off?
I won’t say the scheme never took off. Probably, it did not meet expectations, which were too high. It was essentially for liquefying the existing debt asset for the senior citizen. All over the world, it is a niche programme and not a mass programme, where everybody can get into it. In India, there are cultural issues. There are senior citizens who have told me that their children treat them badly, but still want their house to go them. Therefore, the reverse mortgage product appeals only to some people. Those who don’t have children or who are single, or whose children have totally dissociated from them and settled abroad, or who need it for a short period.
Yes, it (performance of old product) is a bit disappointing, but overall it is not too bad. In our old product, we gave loans worth about Rs. 1,800 crore. There are many people who don’t have a house, we can’t cater to them. So the market itself is somewhat restricted.
Is awareness also a problem?
Yes, to some extent buy awareness among senior citizens has improved significantly. So there could be some issues of delivery; banks may not be very aggressively delivering this. So they (senior citizens) may not be aware of the nuances of the product. Also, there is no special incentive for senior citizens; banks charge normal interest rate. Then, the market is limited.
Earlier, the problem was that the maximum tenor available was 20 years, under the new annuity scheme, the term can be up to a person’s lifetime.
How is the new reverse mortgage product going to shape up after annuity has been integrated with it? How has the response been so far?
People are still trying to understand; the annuity schemes are a little complicated. We are getting a lot of enquiries and sanctions have also taken place but not much.
There is some confusion about how income from the new reverser mortgage product will be taxed. So, will other banks launch the product?
There is no confusion. About 23-25 banks were already offering the old product. Today, both schemes are available. It is the choice of the customer. In the old product, income is exempt in the hands of senior citizens. In the annuity product, it is not exempt since the amount is higher and for lifetime.
But under the Income-tax Act, any annuity is taxed. What we plan to do is to approach the government before next year’s budget to make annuity under this new reverse mortgage scheme tax-free since the old product is also tax-free. There is no difference between the two products, except that we have structured it as annuity to take care of the longevity risk which the insurance company can take. But, the fundamental natural of the loan is the same as loan against property. It is getting taxed because of the word annuity.

Which of the following is a major action point?

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

National Housing Bank (NHB) came out with a reverse mortgage product four years back. The idea was to give periodic income to senior citizens. Why did that scheme never take off?
I won’t say the scheme never took off. Probably, it did not meet expectations, which were too high. It was essentially for liquefying the existing debt asset for the senior citizen. All over the world, it is a niche programme and not a mass programme, where everybody can get into it. In India, there are cultural issues. There are senior citizens who have told me that their children treat them badly, but still want their house to go them. Therefore, the reverse mortgage product appeals only to some people. Those who don’t have children or who are single, or whose children have totally dissociated from them and settled abroad, or who need it for a short period.
Yes, it (performance of old product) is a bit disappointing, but overall it is not too bad. In our old product, we gave loans worth about Rs. 1,800 crore. There are many people who don’t have a house, we can’t cater to them. So the market itself is somewhat restricted.
Is awareness also a problem?
Yes, to some extent buy awareness among senior citizens has improved significantly. So there could be some issues of delivery; banks may not be very aggressively delivering this. So they (senior citizens) may not be aware of the nuances of the product. Also, there is no special incentive for senior citizens; banks charge normal interest rate. Then, the market is limited.
Earlier, the problem was that the maximum tenor available was 20 years, under the new annuity scheme, the term can be up to a person’s lifetime.
How is the new reverse mortgage product going to shape up after annuity has been integrated with it? How has the response been so far?
People are still trying to understand; the annuity schemes are a little complicated. We are getting a lot of enquiries and sanctions have also taken place but not much.
There is some confusion about how income from the new reverser mortgage product will be taxed. So, will other banks launch the product?
There is no confusion. About 23-25 banks were already offering the old product. Today, both schemes are available. It is the choice of the customer. In the old product, income is exempt in the hands of senior citizens. In the annuity product, it is not exempt since the amount is higher and for lifetime.
But under the Income-tax Act, any annuity is taxed. What we plan to do is to approach the government before next year’s budget to make annuity under this new reverse mortgage scheme tax-free since the old product is also tax-free. There is no difference between the two products, except that we have structured it as annuity to take care of the longevity risk which the insurance company can take. But, the fundamental natural of the loan is the same as loan against property. It is getting taxed because of the word annuity.

The product being discussed is _________.

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

National Housing Bank (NHB) came out with a reverse mortgage product four years back. The idea was to give periodic income to senior citizens. Why did that scheme never take off?
I won’t say the scheme never took off. Probably, it did not meet expectations, which were too high. It was essentially for liquefying the existing debt asset for the senior citizen. All over the world, it is a niche programme and not a mass programme, where everybody can get into it. In India, there are cultural issues. There are senior citizens who have told me that their children treat them badly, but still want their house to go them. Therefore, the reverse mortgage product appeals only to some people. Those who don’t have children or who are single, or whose children have totally dissociated from them and settled abroad, or who need it for a short period.
Yes, it (performance of old product) is a bit disappointing, but overall it is not too bad. In our old product, we gave loans worth about Rs. 1,800 crore. There are many people who don’t have a house, we can’t cater to them. So the market itself is somewhat restricted.
Is awareness also a problem?
Yes, to some extent buy awareness among senior citizens has improved significantly. So there could be some issues of delivery; banks may not be very aggressively delivering this. So they (senior citizens) may not be aware of the nuances of the product. Also, there is no special incentive for senior citizens; banks charge normal interest rate. Then, the market is limited.
Earlier, the problem was that the maximum tenor available was 20 years, under the new annuity scheme, the term can be up to a person’s lifetime.
How is the new reverse mortgage product going to shape up after annuity has been integrated with it? How has the response been so far?
People are still trying to understand; the annuity schemes are a little complicated. We are getting a lot of enquiries and sanctions have also taken place but not much.
There is some confusion about how income from the new reverser mortgage product will be taxed. So, will other banks launch the product?
There is no confusion. About 23-25 banks were already offering the old product. Today, both schemes are available. It is the choice of the customer. In the old product, income is exempt in the hands of senior citizens. In the annuity product, it is not exempt since the amount is higher and for lifetime.
But under the Income-tax Act, any annuity is taxed. What we plan to do is to approach the government before next year’s budget to make annuity under this new reverse mortgage scheme tax-free since the old product is also tax-free. There is no difference between the two products, except that we have structured it as annuity to take care of the longevity risk which the insurance company can take. But, the fundamental natural of the loan is the same as loan against property. It is getting taxed because of the word annuity.

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

MEASURES

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

The education sector in India is in ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much publicised report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors which led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but band-aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.
Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries-education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit-making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of ‘for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic a need, less important a right, than higher education?
While there are strong arguments for free or subsidised higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of ‘for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.
Well-run corporate organisations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so-called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other; different organisational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulator framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organisations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan / scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.
The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally.
However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

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

BRIDGE

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

The education sector in India is in ferment, hit by a storm long waiting to happen. The butterfly that flapped its wings was the much-reiterated statement in a much publicised report that hardly a fourth of graduating engineers, and an even smaller percentage of other graduates, was of employable quality for IT-BPO jobs. This triggered a cyclone when similar views were echoed by other sectors which led to widespread debate. Increased industry-academia interaction, “finishing schools”, and other efforts were initiated as immediate measures to bridge skill deficits. These, however, did not work as some felt that these are but band-aid solutions; instead, radical systemic reform is necessary.
Yet, there will be serious challenges to overdue reforms in the education system. In India-as in many countries-education is treated as a holy cow; sadly, the administrative system that oversees it has also been deceived. Today, unfortunately, there is no protest against selling drinking water or paying to be cured of illness, or for having to buy food when one is poor and starving; nor is there an outcry that in all these cases there are commercial companies operating on a profit-making basis. Why, then, is there an instinctively adverse reaction to the formal entry of ‘for-profit’ institutes in the realm of education? Is potable water, health or food, less basic a need, less important a right, than higher education?
While there are strong arguments for free or subsidised higher education, we are not writing on a blank page. Some individuals and businessmen had entered this sector long back and found devious ways of making money, though the law stipulates that educational institutes must be ‘not-for-profit’ trusts or societies. Yet, there is opposition to the entry of ‘for-profit’ corporates, which would be more transparent and accountable. As a result, desperately needed investment in promoting the wider reach of quality education has been stagnated at a time when financial figures indicate that the allocation of funds for the purpose is but a fourth of the need.
Well-run corporate organisations, within an appropriate regulatory framework, would be far better than the so-called trusts which-barring some noteworthy exceptions-are a blot on education. However, it is not necessarily a question of choosing one over the other; different organisational forms can coexist, as they do in the health sector. A regulator framework which creates competition, in tandem with a rating system, would automatically ensure the quality and relevance of education. As in sectors like telecom, and packaged goods, organisations will quickly expand into the hinterland to tap the large unmet demand. Easy Loan / scholarship arrangements would ensure affordability and access.
The only real structural reform in higher education was the creation of the institutes for technology and management. They were also given autonomy and freedom beyond that of the universities. However, in the last few years, determined efforts have been underway to curb their autonomy. These institutes, however, need freedom to decide on recruitment, salaries and admissions, so as to compete globally.
However, such institutes will be few. Therefore, we need a regulatory framework that will enable and encourage States and the Centre, genuine philanthropists and also corporates to set up quality educational institutions. The regulatory system needs only to ensure transparency, accountability, competition and widely-available independent assessments or ratings. It is time for radical thinking, bold experimentation and new structures; it is time for the government to bite the bullet.

Which of the following is true in context of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

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

Open

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

Why, according to the author, is genetic modification of crops not an answer to the problem of hunger in the world? (A) People being highly doubtful of the long term effects of genetically modified crops do not buy the products grown by such methods. (B) The problem of hunger in the world is not due to inadequate production of food but due to unequal distribution of it. (C) Many developing countries have banned genetically modified products as developed countries have been using these countries as dumping grounds for new genetically modified products.Which of the above mentioned reasons hold(s) true?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

The author of the given passage seems to be definitely ____________.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

The effectiveness of a Repartee is essentially decided by

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Passage – I
I have used the word "artless" in my title for good reason, for if there be even a suggestion of premeditation about a repartee, it ceases to be what it is meant for – its power is gone. It is true that repartee has been diagnosed, analyzed and defined in many ways from early times down to our own day; but, instead of wearying my readers with the results of such investigations, I prefer to state briefly that in my opinion a good repartee is the saying of something on the spur of the moment which, by the unanimous consent of its hearers, leaves the person replied to practically destitute of further speech by way of defence.
We are told by some authorities that a repartee should be courteous in form, though severe in substance, and difficult either to mistake or to resent. It is undoubtedly so in its most polished guise –where it takes on a high form of wit and leaves no ranking sting behind – but in as much as some of the best repartees ever delivered are not of that highly polished order, crammed though they may be with cleverness, I do not see that they should be altogether excluded in treating of the subject. I agree rather with the Irishmen who defined repartee as "an insult with its dress– suit on," because, like the quick and well directed knock out blow of a champion of the prize ring, it cannot be dissociated altogether from brutality. A collection of smart replies which conformed too closely to the more polite and diplomatic standard might possesses the elements of instruction, but would certainly be lacking in more amusing qualities.
No one is altogether immune from a witty reply: kings and others of exalted birth or high official standing, down to the man in the street, they all have bad their turn, but the humorist is, of course, treading on rather dangerous ground when he knowingly takes too great a liberty with those of the highest rank, and when dealing with such the repartee has to be wrapped up with more than ordinary care if trouble is to be avoided.