Reading Comprehension Questions

Multiple choice

Fiscal stability of the EMU is necessary because

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

  1. it shows how stable the rates of the European union are

  2. it makes exchange rates far more stable

  3. it assures close monitoring of fiscal solidity of the members

  4. it leads to the actualization of the common currency concept

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

The passage states: 'At the same time, he added, Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.' This directly explains that fiscal stability is necessary because it allows for close monitoring of the financial health of individual member nations, which is crucial for maintaining a stable and sustainable currency union.

Multiple choice

From the passage, it can be made out that

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

  1. Bundesbank is not the national bank of 'Germany

  2. the state central bank of Germany has different presidents for different branches of the bank

  3. Bundesbank is the central bank of Germany

  4. the European Currency union will not start with the plan by 1999

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The passage mentions 'Three members of the Bundesbank's ruling council' and then specifically names three different presidents: 'Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg', 'Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg', and 'Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse'. This clearly indicates that the German state central bank has different presidents for different branches/regions. Option C is incorrect because Bundesbank IS the central bank of Germany.

Multiple choice

The word recession in the passage is closest in meaning to

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

  1. defect

  2. poverty

  3. growth

  4. slump

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

In the context of the passage, 'recession' refers to a period of economic decline or downturn. The passage mentions that nations are 'recovering from severe recession'. Among the options, 'slump' is the closest in meaning to recession as it also refers to a period of decline or downturn in economic activity. 'Defect', 'poverty', and 'growth' do not capture the meaning of recession in this economic context.

Multiple choice

The main thrust of the passage may be said to be the...

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. distribution of labour

  2. allocation of resource

  3. labour saving devices

  4. labour law of torts

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The passage primarily discusses how labor must be divided up in society, starting from the fundamental premise that 'there must be labour at work' before wealth can be divided. It explains various arrangements for dividing labor, from where 'one person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her' to how modern machinery allows 'one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago'. The passage explores different systems (slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism) as different arrangements of this division of labor and the resulting wealth and leisure.

Multiple choice

The tone of the passage may be said to be

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. descriptive

  2. narrative

  3. analytical

  4. introspective

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

The passage has an analytical tone because it systematically examines and breaks down the concept of how labor, leisure, and wealth can be divided in different ways in society. It presents a logical analysis of various arrangements ('They can put the ten hours work on one person...' 'They can each do one hour's work a day...' 'They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours...') and different economic systems (slavery, serfdom, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism) as different arrangements of this fundamental division. It is analytical rather than merely descriptive, narrative, or introspective.

Multiple choice

According to the author, different arrangements are possible for what?

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. Slavery and leisure.

  2. Division of labor, leisure and wealth.

  3. Slavery, serfdom, feudalism and wealth.

  4. Slavery, equitable division of labour, leisure and wealth.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The passage explicitly states: 'Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth.' This clearly indicates that different arrangements are possible for the division of labor, leisure, and wealth, ranging from extreme inequality (slavery) to more equitable distribution. The passage then lists various systems (Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism) as examples of these different arrangements. Option D is the most complete and accurate answer.

Multiple choice

According to the passage the 'burden of labour' has been imposed on us by

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. God

  2. mankind

  3. nature

  4. the need to eat

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The passage states: 'The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.' While this initially suggests 'nature' as the answer, the broader context of the passage makes it clear that this 'burden imposed by nature' is specifically the need to work to obtain food. The passage explains: 'Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat.' Therefore, 'the need to eat' is the most precise and fundamental answer, as it represents the natural necessity that creates the burden of labor.

Multiple choice

On the basis of the passage it can be inferred that the writer is a

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. socialist

  2. pragmatist

  3. radical reformer

  4. capitalist

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The author takes a practical, realistic approach to labour and wealth distribution, examining various economic systems (slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism) as different arrangements without ideological commitment. The passage focuses on how labour and leisure are actually divided in society, and how modern technology creates enormous income disparities. A pragmatist analyzes what works rather than what should be according to ideology.

Multiple choice

Which of the following is a solution given by the author for the betterment of labour

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. that one person put in ten hours a day to support ten persons in luxury

  2. that everyone works longer than needed but after a certain age and education

  3. that everyone should be given better wages

  4. that work is divided up between the work in such a way that there is an equal distribution

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The author explicitly discusses equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth as one possible arrangement. The phrase 'Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth' directly supports option D. The other options describe specific arrangements the author mentions but doesn't endorse as the solution.

Multiple choice

Which of the following has not been mentioned as a helpful entity?

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. Water power

  2. Modern machinery

  3. Labour power

  4. Steam power

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

The passage explicitly lists 'water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery' as helpful forces that increase productivity. 'Labour power' is not mentioned in this context - the passage discusses how labour is organized and divided, not labour power itself as a helpful entity like the natural forces and machines that multiply human productivity.

Multiple choice

The word stunt in the passage is closest in meaning to

Passage – I

The European Union must launch its planned single currency on time or risk serious set-backs even though Germany- the driving force behind integration- might itself miss key entry targets, senior German central bank officials said on Monday night.
Three members of the Bundesbank’s ruling council, speaking at separate events in Germany, warned that nations struggling to meet the fiscal entry criteria while still recovering from severe recession should avoid any temptation to postpone the 1999 start of the monetary union.
Although this might seem like a less painful, and therefore, a desirable option, Mr. Guntram Palm, president of the state central bank in Beden Wuerttemberg, said all talk of delaying the start date was “totally misplaced”.
Such a decision would lend to an immediate, severe appreciation of the German mark, which would hurt German exports as well as stunt nation’s efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances.
One reason that talk of a delay has reached new heights might be that so many nations, including Germany, risked missing the key criteria which call for an aspiring nation’s budget deficit to remain below three percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that its debt should not exceed a reference value of 60 percent of the GDP.
Klaus-Dieter Kuehbacher, president of the state central bank in Berlin and Brandenburg, said that he doubted whether the German government would reach its goal of holding its budget deficit to 2.9 percent of GDP in 1997.
But the three also acknowledged that the deficit goal was only one of a number of entry criteria and that it might ultimately not be the most instrumental to sustaining a stable currency union.
The Maastricht Treaty also states that participating nations must present stable foreign exchange rates as well as low long-term interest and inflation rates and many more nations fulfill these goals.
“In my opinion, European currency union can start in January 1999, while conforming to those EMU convergence criteria that are most often discussed.” said Ernst Welteke, president of the state central bank in Hesse. Welteke said he wondered how a budget deficit of less than three percent would be good for stability, while a budget deficit of slightly more than three percent would be negative.
At the same time, he added, “Fiscal stability in currency union is naturally a very important asset as it ensures that fiscal solidity of the individual members can be closely monitored.”
Fearing strict entry criteria could give way to creative book-keeping, Mr. Palm said, “A trick-free deficit of just over three percent in 1997 that will be further reduced in following years due to savings efforts is preferable to 2.9 percent reached through creative accounting.”
Mr. Welteke added that the three percent deficit criteria should not be a knock-out criteria”, prohibiting any nation just over that level from entering. Both Mr. Palm and Mr. Welteke feel the currency union will go ahead as planned with Germany and France, noting that a currency union without them would make little sense. Officials, however, part ways on whether the union will be a small or a slightly larger one at the beginning. Mr. Palm noticing that most nations already meeting the other criteria, forecasts a bigger circle, but Mr. Kuehbacher saw fewer members.

  1. pacify

  2. end

  3. boost

  4. lower

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

In the phrase 'stunt nation's efforts to achieve a further consolidation of finances,' stunt means to hinder, impede, or prevent growth - similar to 'lower' or reduce. The context discusses how delaying the monetary union would hurt German exports and negatively impact financial consolidation efforts. 'Lower' best captures this sense of hindering progress.

Multiple choice

The meaning of 'leisure' as used in the passage is

 

Passage –II

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the cocoa-nuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve, if anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat. The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.
This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives, lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the Income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

 

 

  1. freedom

  2. pleasure

  3. enjoyment

  4. goodness

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

In the passage, 'leisure' refers specifically to free time available when labour is saved through machinery and technology. The author discusses how this leisure 'also has to be divided up' among people. While leisure can bring enjoyment and freedom, in this context, the passage emphasizes it as pleasure/free time resulting from reduced work hours. The author shows how ten people could arrange that one works ten hours while nine have all leisure.

Multiple choice

It may be inferred from the passage that Kennedy was...

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

  1. a President

  2. the President of the United States

  3. a President of a Multinational company

  4. a very high ranking official of the american army

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The passage clearly refers to Kennedy as 'President Kennedy' and 'the President' throughout. While he was specifically President of the United States, the most direct answer is simply 'a President' without over-specifying. Option A is the most general but correct identification. Option B is factually correct but unnecessarily specific for what the question asks.

Multiple choice

According to the passage, the Triple Underpass is most probably

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

  1. a book depository

  2. a freeway

  3. a plaza

  4. a tunnel

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The Triple Underpass is a tunnel. While not specifically described in the passage, there is a clue which states that as the car is approaching this structure, there will be relief from the heat. An underpass is typically a road or tunnel that is the below the surface and crosses under another road, highway or even bridge. It can be an enclosed tunnel or more open, but as based on the iinformation from the passage, "tunnel" is the the closest option to describe the Triple Underpass.

Multiple choice

In paragraph 3 of the passage, what does the author mean by the expression 'the crowds thinned out'?

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

  1. That the people started to lose interest and went away to some other interesting places.

  2. That Kennedy thought that the people in Dallas were really thin.

  3. That the number of people who stood to watch the president started to reduce.

  4. That the people started to move out from the ground.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

'The crowds thinned out' in paragraph 3 means the number of spectators decreased as the motorcade approached the Triple Underpass. The phrase 'thinned out' refers to density or concentration becoming less - there were fewer people standing along the route. This context makes it clear it's about reduced crowd numbers, not people becoming physically thin or leaving out of boredom.