Question

The author doubts the anti-GM lobby’s contention that MNC control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor because

• A. MNCs will focus on high-value food items.
• B. MNCs are driven by the motive of profit maximization.
• C. MNCs are not the only group of actors in genetically-modified food research.
• D. Economic development will help the poor buy MNC-produced food.
• A. USA and Spain.
• B. India and Iraq.
• C. Germany and France.
• D. Australia and New Zealand.
• A. wiping out competing varieties of plants which now fall prey to killer weeds.
• B. forcing application of stronger herbicides to kill weeds which have become resistant to weak herbicides.
• C. forcing application of stronger herbicides to keep the competing plants weed-free.
• D. not allowing growth of any weeds, thus reducing soil fertility.
• A. is of utility only for high value food items.
• B. is funded only by multinational corporations.
• C. allows multinational corporations to control the food basket of the poor.
• D. addresses the concerns of developed and developing countries.
• A. Indian media generally covers a subject of scientific importance when its mass application is likely.
• B. Indian media’s coverage of scientific research is generally dependent on MNCs interests.
• C. Indian media, in partnership with the government, is actively involved in publicizing the results of scientific research.
• D. Indian media only highlights scientific research which is funded by the government.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand what is being asked:
The stem says the author doubts one particular claim of the anti-GM lobby: that MNC control of the food chain will be disastrous for the poor.
So we must find where the author argues against that claim and pick the reason the author gives.
Do not pick a reason that the lobby itself uses. Do not pick a statement that is merely true in general.

Step 2: Find the lobby's argument in the passage:
The paragraph beginning "This line of argument goes on to claim..." states the lobby's case.
The lobby says MNCs, "guided by the profit motive", will "only focus on the high-value food items demanded by the affluent".
In the long run, the lobby says, basic staples that make up the food basket of the poor will taper off.

Step 3: Find where the author disagrees:
Right after that, the author writes: "However, this vastly overestimates the power of the MNCs."
The word "However" marks the turn. The author then gives the reason in the next sentence.
"Even if the research promoted by them does focus on the high-value food items, much of biotechnology research is also funded by governments in both developing and developed countries."
So the reason is that MNCs are only one of the groups doing and paying for GM research. Governments fund research too, and the protato is the example the author gives.

Step 4: Check option 1:
"MNCs will focus on high-value food items." This is the lobby's own premise. The author accepts it only for the sake of argument ("Even if..."). It cannot be the reason for doubting the lobby. So option 1 is wrong.

Step 5: Check option 2:
"MNCs are driven by the motive of profit maximization." The passage also gives this as part of the lobby's argument ("guided by the profit motive"). The author never uses it to attack the lobby. So option 2 is wrong.

Step 6: Check option 3:
"MNCs are not the only group of actors in genetically-modified food research." This matches the sentence about governments funding much of the research. So option 3 is correct.

Step 7: Check option 4:
"Economic development will help the poor buy MNC-produced food." Nothing in the passage talks about rising incomes or the poor buying MNC food. The author's counter is about who does the research, not about what the poor can afford. So option 4 is wrong.

Final Answer:
The author doubts the lobby because MNCs are not the only players: governments in developed and developing countries also fund GM research. This is option 3. \[ \boxed{\text{Option 3}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Understand the question:
The passage never names Germany, France, Spain or Australia. So we must infer from clues which pair of countries would lead the anti-GM campaign.
Both countries in the chosen pair must fit the clues. One wrong country is enough to reject an option.

Step 2: Collect the clues:
Clue 1: Opponents of GM are "mainly in Europe".
Clue 2: "The anti-GM campaign has been quite effective in Europe, with several European Union member countries imposing a virtual ban for five years over genetically-modified food imports."
Clue 3: The GM food industry "is particularly strong in the United States of America", and the controversy is another chapter in the "US-Europe skirmishes". So the USA is on the pro-GM side, facing Europe.
Clue 4: In India the controversy "has been ignored in the Indian media" to a large extent. So India is not at the forefront of any campaign.

Step 3: Check option 1, USA and Spain:
Spain is in Europe and an EU member, which fits. But the USA has a strong GM industry and is the opponent of the European campaign. One country fails, so option 1 is wrong.

Step 4: Check option 2, India and Iraq:
India has largely ignored the debate. Iraq appears only as a place the US invaded, which has nothing to do with GM food. Neither fits, so option 2 is wrong.

Step 5: Check option 3, Germany and France:
Both are in Europe, and both are EU member countries. They are the kind of countries the passage describes as leading the ban on GM food imports. Both fit, so option 3 is correct.

Step 6: Check option 4, Australia and New Zealand:
These two countries are not in Europe and the passage says nothing about them. Nothing suggests they lead any anti-GM campaign. So option 4 is wrong.

Final Answer:
The campaign is strong in Europe and among EU members, and Germany and France are two such countries. This is option 3. \[ \boxed{\text{Option 3}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1: Understand the question:
The stem tells us that GM plants resist killer weeds, and then says "However, this can lead to environmental damage by...".
So we need the damage that the passage itself describes in the paragraph on the second type of cost.

Step 2: Read the relevant paragraph:
"The second type of cost associated with the genetically modified food industry is environmental damage."
GM plants are made resistant to weed-killers, so farmers use "massive dosages of weedkillers" to wipe out all competing plants in the field.
Then comes the problem: "some weeds through genetically-modified pollen contamination may acquire resistance to a variety of weed-killers. The only way to destroy these weeds is through the use of ever-stronger herbicides which are poisonous and linger on in the environment."
So the damage is a chain. Weeds become resistant, stronger herbicides are forced on farmers, and those herbicides are poisonous and stay in the environment.

Step 3: Check option 1:
Wiping out competing plants is what the weed-killer is meant to do in a GM crop field. The passage presents it as the benefit farmers want, not as the environmental damage. Also, the passage says nothing about competing plants falling prey to killer weeds. So option 1 is wrong.

Step 4: Check option 2:
"Forcing application of stronger herbicides to kill weeds which have become resistant to weak herbicides." This follows the passage almost word for word: resistant weeds can be destroyed only with ever-stronger herbicides. So option 2 is correct.

Step 5: Check option 3:
This option says stronger herbicides are used to keep the competing plants weed-free. That mixes up the purpose. The stronger herbicides are needed to kill the weeds that have become resistant, not to protect other plants. So option 3 is wrong.

Step 6: Check option 4:
The passage never says weeds are prevented from growing, and it never talks about soil fertility. So option 4 is wrong.

Final Answer:
The damage described is the forced use of ever-stronger herbicides against weeds that have turned resistant. This is option 2. \[ \boxed{\text{Option 2}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Understand the question:
The words "According to the passage" mean the answer must be supported by the text, either directly or by a very short inference. We should not use outside knowledge.
Three of the options sound like the anti-GM lobby, so we must watch whether the author agrees with them or not.

Step 2: Find the author's own statements about research:
The author says: "much of biotechnology research is also funded by governments in both developing and developed countries."
The author adds that the protato is "a by-product of this type of research". The protato was developed by an Indian team led by Asis Datta, and it is meant for the midday meal programme for schools in India.
The author also says the success story "can be repeated with other basic food items".

Step 3: Check option 1:
"Of utility only for high value food items." The protato is a basic food item. Staples like it are not high-value items for the affluent. So option 1 is wrong.

Step 4: Check option 2:
"Funded only by multinational corporations." The author says governments fund much of the research too. The word "only" makes this option false. So option 2 is wrong.

Step 5: Check option 3:
"Allows multinational corporations to control the food basket of the poor." This is the lobby's fear, and the author says it "vastly overestimates the power of the MNCs". So option 3 is wrong.

Step 6: Check option 4:
Government-funded research in developing and developed countries covers staples for the poor (the protato in India) as well as other food items. So research is serving the concerns of both kinds of countries. This is a fair summary of what the author says. So option 4 is correct.

Final Answer:
The passage shows research funded by governments of both developed and developing countries, and aimed at basic foods for the poor too. This is option 4. \[ \boxed{\text{Option 4}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Understand the question:
The word "suggest" tells us the passage does not state the answer in so many words. We must read between the lines of what the passage says about the Indian media.
Only the third paragraph talks about the Indian media, so the answer is hidden there.

Step 2: Read what the passage says about the Indian media:
"To a large extent, the GM controversy has been ignored in the Indian media, although Indian biotechnologists have been quite active in GM research."
Then: "It is quite likely that the GM controversy will soon hit the headlines in India since a spokesperson of the Indian Central government has recently announced that the government may use the protato in its midday meal programme for schools as early as next year."
So the media has not covered GM research so far. The reason the passage gives for coverage to start soon is that the protato may reach schools across the country. In other words, a mass application is near.

Step 3: Check option 1:
"Indian media generally covers a subject of scientific importance when its mass application is likely." This fits the pattern. The subject was ignored while it stayed in the laboratory, and it is expected to make headlines once it is to be used in a mass programme. So option 1 is correct.

Step 4: Check option 2:
The passage does not link the media with MNC interests at all. So option 2 has no support.

Step 5: Check option 3:
A partnership between the media and the government is never mentioned. The government announcement is only the event that is likely to bring the issue into the news. The media is not shown as publicizing research actively. In fact, it is shown as having ignored it. So option 3 is wrong.

Step 6: Check option 4:
"Only highlights research funded by the government" is an absolute claim with no support in the text. The media has ignored most GM research, including government-funded work, until now. So option 4 is wrong.

Final Answer:
The passage suggests that the Indian media notices scientific work when it is likely to have a mass application. This is option 1. \[ \boxed{\text{Option 1}} \]