List of top Verbal and Logical Ability Questions asked in XAT

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

A major problem of Indian industrial and commercial development was the supply of capital. Until 1850, British capital was shy of Indian adventure. The risks and unknown factors were too great, and prospects in other directions too bright. The working capital of the agency houses after 1813 at first consisted mainly of the savings of the Company's servants. Their cries of woe when these houses fell as in the crisis of 1831 were loud and poignant. Indian capital was also shy for different reasons. It needed to acquire confidence in the new regime, and outside the presidency towns, to acquire the habit of investment. Investment for large-scale production for 'enabling' works like railways was an unfamiliar and suspected practice. Thus the first big developments came when European capital was coaxed into the country by government guarantees or went of its own free will to develop industries with which it was already familiar as in the case of jute or coal. Indian capital followed where it was in touch with European practice as in Bombay and dealing with familiar products like cotton. These considerations throw into all the greater relief the achievement of the Tatas in developing iron and steel. Thus the major part of the capital provided was British with a steadily increasing Indian proportion from 1900. As late as 1931-32 the capital of companies registered abroad was nearly four times that of companies registered in India. But this is not an exact guide because it leaves out of account the stock in British companies held by Indians, as well as government stocks. Speaking generally it may be said that the capital of the cotton industry was mainly Indian, that of the iron and steel industry entirely so, that of the jute industry about half and half, while the coal and plantation industries were mainly British, together with that used for the building of railways, irrigation, and other public works. Management in the cotton and steel industries was mainly Indian though European technicians were freely employed, that of the jute, coal, and the plantation industries being European, the jute men in particular being Scotch. Their capital, apart of course from government enterprise, operated through joint-stock companies and managing agencies. The latter arose through the convenience found by bodies of capitalists seeking to develop some new activity and lacking any Indian experience, of operating through local agents. It arose in the period after 1813 when private merchants took over the trade formerly monopolized by the Company. The money would be found in Britain to promote a tea garden, a coal mine, or a jute mill, but the management would be confided to a firm already on the spot. The managing agency was the hyphen connecting capital with experience and local knowledge. Until 1914 the policy of the government continued in the main to be one of 'enabling' private capital and enterprise to develop the country. Direct promotion was confined to public utilities like canals and railways. The line between enabling and interfering action became distinctly blurred, however, in the case of the cotton industry and there was a tendency for enabling action to pass over into the positive promotion of particular projects. This was most noticeable in the time of Lord Curzon with his establishment of an imperial department of agriculture with a research station at Pusa and a department of commerce and industry presided over by a sixth member of the Viceroy's Council. The first World War began the transition to a new period of active promotion and positive support. As the conflict lengthened there arose a demand for Indian manufactured goods. India failed to take full advantage of this opportunity, partly because of uncertainty as to the future and partly because the means for sudden expansion were lacking. The outcome of this situation was the appointment of an industrial commission in 1916 under pressure from London. The commission criticized the unequal development of Indian industry which had led to the missing of her war opportunity. A much closer co-operation with industry was planned through provincial departments of industry. Increased technical training and technical assistance to industry was proposed while it was suggested that the Central government should set up a stores department which should aim at making India self-sufficing in this respect. The commission's report was only partially implemented, but a stores department and provincial industrial departments were created and something was done towards promoting technical assistance. The importance of the report and its aftermath was that it marked the transition from the conception of Indian economy in broadly colonial terms with freedom for private enterprise to the conception of India as an autonomous economic unit.



During the early twentieth century, Indians were restricted to making investment in stocks of companies that were necessarily listed in India. This was done with the aim of confining Indian capital to India so that it could not compete with British capital.
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Attempting to understand science and scientific reasoning in terms of the subjective beliefs of scientists would seem to be a disappointing departure for those who seek an objective account of science. Howson and Urbach have an answer to that charge. They insist that the Bayesian theory constitutes an objective theory of scientific inference. That is, given a set of prior probabilities and some new evidence, Bayes' theorem dictates in an objective way what the new, posterior, probabilities must be in the light of that evidence. There is no difference in this respect between Bayesianism and deductive logic, because logic has nothing to say about the source of the propositions that constitute the premises of a deduction either. It simply dictates what follows from those propositions once they are given. The Bayesian defence can be taken a stage further. It can be argued that the beliefs of individual scientists, however much they might differ at the outset, can be made to converge given the appropriate input of evidence. It is easy to see in an informal way how this can come about. Suppose two scientists start out by disagreeing greatly about the probable truth of hypothesis h which predicts otherwise unexpected experimental outcome e. The one who attributes a high probability to h will regard e as less unlikely than the one who attributes a low probability to h. So P(e) will be high for the former and low for the latter. Suppose now that e is experimentally confirmed. Each scientist will have to adjust the probabilities for h by the factor P(e/h)/P(e). However, since we are assuming that e follows from h, P(e/h) is 1 and the scaling factor is 1/P(e). Consequently, the scientist who started with a low probability for h will scale up that probability by a larger factor than the scientist who started with a higher probability for h. As more positive evidence comes in, the original doubter is forced to scale up the probability in such a way that it eventually approaches that of the already convinced scientist. In this way, argue the Bayesians, widely differing subjective opinions can be brought into conformity in response to evidence in an objective way.



Using the idea explicated in the passage above, the only scientific way to deny the validity of a counter-hypothesis put forward to explain a natural phenomenon would be to:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Attempting to understand science and scientific reasoning in terms of the subjective beliefs of scientists would seem to be a disappointing departure for those who seek an objective account of science. Howson and Urbach have an answer to that charge. They insist that the Bayesian theory constitutes an objective theory of scientific inference. That is, given a set of prior probabilities and some new evidence, Bayes' theorem dictates in an objective way what the new, posterior, probabilities must be in the light of that evidence. There is no difference in this respect between Bayesianism and deductive logic, because logic has nothing to say about the source of the propositions that constitute the premises of a deduction either. It simply dictates what follows from those propositions once they are given. The Bayesian defence can be taken a stage further. It can be argued that the beliefs of individual scientists, however much they might differ at the outset, can be made to converge given the appropriate input of evidence. It is easy to see in an informal way how this can come about. Suppose two scientists start out by disagreeing greatly about the probable truth of hypothesis h which predicts otherwise unexpected experimental outcome e. The one who attributes a high probability to h will regard e as less unlikely than the one who attributes a low probability to h. So P(e) will be high for the former and low for the latter. Suppose now that e is experimentally confirmed. Each scientist will have to adjust the probabilities for h by the factor P(e/h)/P(e). However, since we are assuming that e follows from h, P(e/h) is 1 and the scaling factor is 1/P(e). Consequently, the scientist who started with a low probability for h will scale up that probability by a larger factor than the scientist who started with a higher probability for h. As more positive evidence comes in, the original doubter is forced to scale up the probability in such a way that it eventually approaches that of the already convinced scientist. In this way, argue the Bayesians, widely differing subjective opinions can be brought into conformity in response to evidence in an objective way.



The subjective beliefs of scientists referred to in the passage could be due to:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Attempting to understand science and scientific reasoning in terms of the subjective beliefs of scientists would seem to be a disappointing departure for those who seek an objective account of science. Howson and Urbach have an answer to that charge. They insist that the Bayesian theory constitutes an objective theory of scientific inference. That is, given a set of prior probabilities and some new evidence, Bayes' theorem dictates in an objective way what the new, posterior, probabilities must be in the light of that evidence. There is no difference in this respect between Bayesianism and deductive logic, because logic has nothing to say about the source of the propositions that constitute the premises of a deduction either. It simply dictates what follows from those propositions once they are given. The Bayesian defence can be taken a stage further. It can be argued that the beliefs of individual scientists, however much they might differ at the outset, can be made to converge given the appropriate input of evidence. It is easy to see in an informal way how this can come about. Suppose two scientists start out by disagreeing greatly about the probable truth of hypothesis h which predicts otherwise unexpected experimental outcome e. The one who attributes a high probability to h will regard e as less unlikely than the one who attributes a low probability to h. So P(e) will be high for the former and low for the latter. Suppose now that e is experimentally confirmed. Each scientist will have to adjust the probabilities for h by the factor P(e/h)/P(e). However, since we are assuming that e follows from h, P(e/h) is 1 and the scaling factor is 1/P(e). Consequently, the scientist who started with a low probability for h will scale up that probability by a larger factor than the scientist who started with a higher probability for h. As more positive evidence comes in, the original doubter is forced to scale up the probability in such a way that it eventually approaches that of the already convinced scientist. In this way, argue the Bayesians, widely differing subjective opinions can be brought into conformity in response to evidence in an objective way.



Scientists' beliefs which differ at the outset are related to:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



The statement that the author of the passage would support the most is:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



Amongst the options below, the one that best captures the ideology being advocated by the author is:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



Amongst the options given below, the one most opposite to the ideology being advocated by the author:

Directions for questions 15 to 20: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows.

A major problem of Indian industrial and commercial development was the supply of capital. Until 1850, British capital was shy of Indian adventure. The risks and unknown factors were too great, and prospects in other directions too bright. The working capital of the agency houses after 1813 at first consisted mainly of the savings of the Company's servants. Their cries of woe when these houses fell as in the crisis of 1831 were loud and poignant. Indian capital was also shy for different reasons. It needed to acquire confidence in the new regime, and outside the presidency towns, to acquire the habit of investment. Investment for large-scale production for 'enabling' works like railways was an unfamiliar and suspected practice. Thus the first big developments came when European capital was coaxed into the country by government guarantees or went of its own free will to develop industries with which it was already familiar as in the case of jute or coal. Indian capital followed where it was in touch with European practice as in Bombay and dealing with familiar products like cotton. These considerations throw into all the greater relief the achievement of the Tatas in developing iron and steel. Thus the major part of the capital provided was British with a steadily increasing Indian proportion from 1900. As late as 1931-32 the capital of companies registered abroad was nearly four times that of companies registered in India. But this is not an exact guide because it leaves out of account the stock in British companies held by Indians, as well as government stocks. Speaking generally it may be said that the capital of the cotton industry was mainly Indian, that of the iron and steel industry entirely so, that of the jute industry about half and half, while the coal and plantation industries were mainly British, together with that used for the building of railways, irrigation, and other public works. Management in the cotton and steel industries was mainly Indian though European technicians were freely employed, that of the jute, coal, and the plantation industries being European, the jute men in particular being Scotch. Their capital, apart of course from government enterprise, operated through joint-stock companies and managing agencies. The latter arose through the convenience found by bodies of capitalists seeking to develop some new activity and lacking any Indian experience, of operating through local agents. It arose in the period after 1813 when private merchants took over the trade formerly monopolized by the Company. The money would be found in Britain to promote a tea garden, a coal mine, or a jute mill, but the management would be confided to a firm already on the spot. The managing agency was the hyphen connecting capital with experience and local knowledge.

Until 1914 the policy of the government continued in the main to be one of 'enabling' private capital and enterprise to develop the country. Direct promotion was confined to public utilities like canals and railways. The line between enabling and interfering action became distinctly blurred, however, in the case of the cotton industry and there was a tendency for enabling action to pass over into the positive promotion of particular projects. This was most noticeable in the time of Lord Curzon with his establishment of an imperial department of agriculture with a research station at Pusa and a department of commerce and industry presided over by a sixth member of the Viceroy's Council. The first World War began the transition to a new period of active promotion and positive support. As the conflict lengthened there arose a demand for Indian manufactured goods. India failed to take full advantage of this opportunity, partly because of uncertainty as to the future and partly because the means for sudden expansion were lacking. The outcome of this situation was the appointment of an industrial commission in 1916 under pressure from London. The commission criticized the unequal development of Indian industry which had led to the missing of her war opportunity. A much closer co-operation with industry was planned through provincial departments of industry. Increased technical training and technical assistance to industry was proposed while it was suggested that the Central government should set up a stores department which should aim at making India self-sufficing in this respect. The commission's report was only partially implemented, but a stores department and provincial industrial departments were created and something was done towards promoting technical assistance. The importance of the report and its aftermath was that it marked the transition from the conception of Indian economy in broadly colonial terms with freedom for private enterprise to the conception of India as an autonomous economic unit.

The following can be inferred from the passage:

I. Industrial development of a country requires supply of external capital
II. Investment in uncertain industries is more when government provides guarantees against failure
III. Lack of indigenous technical expertise can be a constraining factor in a country's economic development
IV. Enabling infrastructure like railways would have to be provided necessarily by the government
V. Market development for the final products is an important prerequisite for industrial development

Directions for questions 15 to 20: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows.

A major problem of Indian industrial and commercial development was the supply of capital. Until 1850, British capital was shy of Indian adventure. The risks and unknown factors were too great, and prospects in other directions too bright. The working capital of the agency houses after 1813 at first consisted mainly of the savings of the Company's servants. Their cries of woe when these houses fell as in the crisis of 1831 were loud and poignant. Indian capital was also shy for different reasons. It needed to acquire confidence in the new regime, and outside the presidency towns, to acquire the habit of investment. Investment for large-scale production for 'enabling' works like railways was an unfamiliar and suspected practice. Thus the first big developments came when European capital was coaxed into the country by government guarantees or went of its own free will to develop industries with which it was already familiar as in the case of jute or coal. Indian capital followed where it was in touch with European practice as in Bombay and dealing with familiar products like cotton. These considerations throw into all the greater relief the achievement of the Tatas in developing iron and steel. Thus the major part of the capital provided was British with a steadily increasing Indian proportion from 1900. As late as 1931-32 the capital of companies registered abroad was nearly four times that of companies registered in India. But this is not an exact guide because it leaves out of account the stock in British companies held by Indians, as well as government stocks. Speaking generally it may be said that the capital of the cotton industry was mainly Indian, that of the iron and steel industry entirely so, that of the jute industry about half and half, while the coal and plantation industries were mainly British, together with that used for the building of railways, irrigation, and other public works. Management in the cotton and steel industries was mainly Indian though European technicians were freely employed, that of the jute, coal, and the plantation industries being European, the jute men in particular being Scotch. Their capital, apart of course from government enterprise, operated through joint-stock companies and managing agencies. The latter arose through the convenience found by bodies of capitalists seeking to develop some new activity and lacking any Indian experience, of operating through local agents. It arose in the period after 1813 when private merchants took over the trade formerly monopolized by the Company. The money would be found in Britain to promote a tea garden, a coal mine, or a jute mill, but the management would be confided to a firm already on the spot. The managing agency was the hyphen connecting capital with experience and local knowledge.

Until 1914 the policy of the government continued in the main to be one of 'enabling' private capital and enterprise to develop the country. Direct promotion was confined to public utilities like canals and railways. The line between enabling and interfering action became distinctly blurred, however, in the case of the cotton industry and there was a tendency for enabling action to pass over into the positive promotion of particular projects. This was most noticeable in the time of Lord Curzon with his establishment of an imperial department of agriculture with a research station at Pusa and a department of commerce and industry presided over by a sixth member of the Viceroy's Council. The first World War began the transition to a new period of active promotion and positive support. As the conflict lengthened there arose a demand for Indian manufactured goods. India failed to take full advantage of this opportunity, partly because of uncertainty as to the future and partly because the means for sudden expansion were lacking. The outcome of this situation was the appointment of an industrial commission in 1916 under pressure from London. The commission criticized the unequal development of Indian industry which had led to the missing of her war opportunity. A much closer co-operation with industry was planned through provincial departments of industry. Increased technical training and technical assistance to industry was proposed while it was suggested that the Central government should set up a stores department which should aim at making India self-sufficing in this respect. The commission's report was only partially implemented, but a stores department and provincial industrial departments were created and something was done towards promoting technical assistance. The importance of the report and its aftermath was that it marked the transition from the conception of Indian economy in broadly colonial terms with freedom for private enterprise to the conception of India as an autonomous economic unit.

The first capitalists investing in Indian economy were:

Directions for questions 15 to 20: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows.

A major problem of Indian industrial and commercial development was the supply of capital. Until 1850, British capital was shy of Indian adventure. The risks and unknown factors were too great, and prospects in other directions too bright. The working capital of the agency houses after 1813 at first consisted mainly of the savings of the Company's servants. Their cries of woe when these houses fell as in the crisis of 1831 were loud and poignant. Indian capital was also shy for different reasons. It needed to acquire confidence in the new regime, and outside the presidency towns, to acquire the habit of investment. Investment for large-scale production for 'enabling' works like railways was an unfamiliar and suspected practice. Thus the first big developments came when European capital was coaxed into the country by government guarantees or went of its own free will to develop industries with which it was already familiar as in the case of jute or coal. Indian capital followed where it was in touch with European practice as in Bombay and dealing with familiar products like cotton. These considerations throw into all the greater relief the achievement of the Tatas in developing iron and steel. Thus the major part of the capital provided was British with a steadily increasing Indian proportion from 1900. As late as 1931-32 the capital of companies registered abroad was nearly four times that of companies registered in India. But this is not an exact guide because it leaves out of account the stock in British companies held by Indians, as well as government stocks. Speaking generally it may be said that the capital of the cotton industry was mainly Indian, that of the iron and steel industry entirely so, that of the jute industry about half and half, while the coal and plantation industries were mainly British, together with that used for the building of railways, irrigation, and other public works. Management in the cotton and steel industries was mainly Indian though European technicians were freely employed, that of the jute, coal, and the plantation industries being European, the jute men in particular being Scotch. Their capital, apart of course from government enterprise, operated through joint-stock companies and managing agencies. The latter arose through the convenience found by bodies of capitalists seeking to develop some new activity and lacking any Indian experience, of operating through local agents. It arose in the period after 1813 when private merchants took over the trade formerly monopolized by the Company. The money would be found in Britain to promote a tea garden, a coal mine, or a jute mill, but the management would be confided to a firm already on the spot. The managing agency was the hyphen connecting capital with experience and local knowledge.

Until 1914 the policy of the government continued in the main to be one of 'enabling' private capital and enterprise to develop the country. Direct promotion was confined to public utilities like canals and railways. The line between enabling and interfering action became distinctly blurred, however, in the case of the cotton industry and there was a tendency for enabling action to pass over into the positive promotion of particular projects. This was most noticeable in the time of Lord Curzon with his establishment of an imperial department of agriculture with a research station at Pusa and a department of commerce and industry presided over by a sixth member of the Viceroy's Council. The first World War began the transition to a new period of active promotion and positive support. As the conflict lengthened there arose a demand for Indian manufactured goods. India failed to take full advantage of this opportunity, partly because of uncertainty as to the future and partly because the means for sudden expansion were lacking. The outcome of this situation was the appointment of an industrial commission in 1916 under pressure from London. The commission criticized the unequal development of Indian industry which had led to the missing of her war opportunity. A much closer co-operation with industry was planned through provincial departments of industry. Increased technical training and technical assistance to industry was proposed while it was suggested that the Central government should set up a stores department which should aim at making India self-sufficing in this respect. The commission's report was only partially implemented, but a stores department and provincial industrial departments were created and something was done towards promoting technical assistance. The importance of the report and its aftermath was that it marked the transition from the conception of Indian economy in broadly colonial terms with freedom for private enterprise to the conception of India as an autonomous economic unit.

After the start of the first World War, all of the following could be likely reasons for the British government adopting a proactive stance towards Indian industry except:

Go through the exchange between the two poets below and answer the question that follows.

Poet 1: I do my thing and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations... and you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you... and I am I. And if, by chance, we find each other... it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped. Poet 2: If I just do my thing and you do yours. We stand in danger of losing each other And ourselves. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations; But I am in this world to confirm you as a unique human being. And to be confirmed by you. We are fully ourselves only in relation to each other; The I detached from Thou Disintegrates. I do not find you by chance; I find you by an active life of reaching out. Rather than passively letting things happen to me, I can act intentionally to make them happen. I must begin within myself, true; But I must not end with myself: The truth begins with two.



Amongst the following ways of living one's life, which one would the first poet most strongly endorse?
Go through the exchange between the two poets below and answer the question that follows.

Poet 1: I do my thing and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations... and you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you... and I am I. And if, by chance, we find each other... it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped. Poet 2: If I just do my thing and you do yours. We stand in danger of losing each other And ourselves. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations; But I am in this world to confirm you as a unique human being. And to be confirmed by you. We are fully ourselves only in relation to each other; The I detached from Thou Disintegrates. I do not find you by chance; I find you by an active life of reaching out. Rather than passively letting things happen to me, I can act intentionally to make them happen. I must begin within myself, true; But I must not end with myself: The truth begins with two.



What could be the central theme of the second poem?
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



According to the author, those who agree to the aims of socialism would:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully and quickly attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body. There are many people who call themselves socialists although they care only about the first, who fervently believe in those ultimate aims of socialism but neither care nor understand how they can be achieved, and who are merely certain they must be achieved, whatever the cost. But to nearly all those to whom socialism is not merely a hope but an object of practical politics, the characteristic methods of modern socialism are as essential as the ends themselves. Most people, on the other hand, who value the ultimate ends of socialism no less than the socialists, refuse to support socialism because of the dangers to other values they see in the methods proposed by the socialists. The dispute about socialism has thus become largely a dispute about means and not about ends-although the question whether the different ends of socialism can be simultaneously achieved is also involved. This would be enough to create confusion. And the confusion has been further increased by the common practice of denying that those who repudiate the means value the ends. But this is not all. The situation is still more complicated by the fact that the same means, the "economic planning" which is the prime instrument for socialist reform, can be used for many other purposes. We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. "Planning", therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that "production for use" be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial elite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could ensure an equalitarian distribution. It may, perhaps, seem unfair to use the term socialism to describe its methods rather than its aims, to use for a particular method a term which for many people stand for an ultimate ideal. It is probably preferable to describe the methods which can be used for a great variety of ends as collectivism and to regard socialism as a species of that genus. Yet, although to most socialists only one species of collectivism will represent true socialism, it must always be remembered that socialism is a species of collectivism and that therefore everything which is true for collectivism as such must apply to socialism. Nearly all the points which are disputed between socialists and liberals concerns the methods common to all forms of collectivism and not the particular ends for which the socialists want to use them; and all the consequences with which we shall be concerned in this book follow from the methods of collectivism irrespective of the ends for which they are used. It must also not be forgotten that socialism is not only by far the most important species of collectivism or "planning"; but that it is socialism which has persuaded liberal-minded people to submit once more to that regimentation of economic life which they had overthrown because, in the words of Adam Smith, it puts governments in a position where "to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical".



From the passage, it may be inferred that the author is a supporter of:
"The correlation between technological intensity and diversification may be spurious, as both may be related to selling to the government or to other dominant customers."

In the above sentence, spurious may refer to all of the following but:
The various branches of knowledge complete, correct, and balance each other. This consideration, if well-founded, must be taken into account, not only as regards the attainment of truth, which is their common end, but as regards the influence which they exercise upon those whose education consists in the study of them.

The word exercise in the extract above most nearly means:
Basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic 'taken-for-granted' fashion an organization's view of itself and its environment. These assumptions and beliefs are learned responses to a group's problems. They come to be taken for granted because they solve those problems repeatedly and reliably.

What would be the word that can substitute for assumptions in the extract above, WITHOUT changing the extract's meaning?
Read the following exchange between two poets and answer the question below.

Poet 1:
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations...
and you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you...
and I am I.
And if, by chance, we find each other...
it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.

Poet 2:
If I just do my thing and you do yours.
We stand in danger of losing each other
And ourselves.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations;
But I am in this world to confirm you
as a unique human being.
And to be confirmed by you.
We are fully ourselves only in relation to each other;
The I detached from Thou
Disintegrates.
I do not find you by chance;
I find you by an active life
of reaching out.
Rather than passively letting things happen to me,
I can act intentionally to make them happen.
I must begin within myself, true;
But I must not end with myself:
The truth begins with two.

Amongst the perspectives listed below, which one would extend Poet 2's argument the most?
Read the following exchange between two poets and answer the question below.

Poet 1:
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations...
and you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you...
and I am I.
And if, by chance, we find each other...
it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.

Poet 2:
If I just do my thing and you do yours.
We stand in danger of losing each other
And ourselves.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations;
But I am in this world to confirm you
as a unique human being.
And to be confirmed by you.
We are fully ourselves only in relation to each other;
The I detached from Thou
Disintegrates.
I do not find you by chance;
I find you by an active life
of reaching out.
Rather than passively letting things happen to me,
I can act intentionally to make them happen.
I must begin within myself, true;
But I must not end with myself:
The truth begins with two.

What could the second poem be best characterized as, with respect to the first?
Which of the following choices MOST accurately captures the meaning of crucible as used in the sentence below?

General Charles Krulak, the Commandant, introduced "The Crucible" to Marine training, an incredibly grueling fifty-four straight hours of live fire exercises, long marches, and sleep deprivation at the end of basic training. After climbing the final hill in this test, recruits are presented with the eagle, globe, and anchor emblem.
Which of the following choices will be MOST opposite to the word juvenile as used in the sentence below?

Juvenile delinquents and depressive or suicidal psychiatric patients show orphanhood rates similar to those of the eminent public figures.
Read the following passage and answer the question below.

No effort is made to understand the reasons for these recurring disasters. Nobody has the time or the inclination to understand the reasons. Unless and until we make an effort to understand these disasters will continue year after year with ever-increasing intensity.

The paramount need of day is “information, education, and planning”. Information would mean gathering data from all over the world about environmental degradation, loss of forest cover or mangroves, and pollution of all kinds.

Education would mean informing the rules the mankind the reasons for these distressed.

People must be made aware of the phenomenon of global warming. The vaporous by products of human activities create gas, like carbon dioxide-CO2 – which traps vast amount of heat resulting in the increase of earth’s temperature, which boosts sea-level, shifts seasons. Unseasonal floods, rains, droughts etc. are the direct pattern of seasons but not so under E1 Nino. Increase of two degrees in global warming can cause a havoc.

Greenhouse effect is another phenomenon, which haunts us, incoming sunlight has an energy equivalent to about 3,100 watts bulbs per sq yard. Lower air layers, which contain a number of gases, water vapour, CO2 and many others, trap the heat when these gases warm up, some of the heat is radiated back to earth ‘s surface. This is broadly known as green effect.

CO2 emission accounts for 60 percent of warming and has a life span of about 100 years in the atmosphere. Water vapour in contrast has a life span of eight days only.

Ozone-level depletion is another cause of series concern as it causes killer cancer for which as yet there is no cure.

Once we understand the causes, it is easy to take to remedial measures. This brings us to planning.

Effluent management planning is the dire need of the day. There should be steering committee of governmental ministers, scientists, industries, NGOs, to devise means to develop and install machineries to prevent major cause of polluting effluents mentioned earlier. Within a time-bound framework, these devices must be installed, failing which the erring industries must be closed down. No new industries should be permitted without efficient effluent management and treatment. Chemical pesticides should be phased out gradually. Indian farmer for centuries depended upon organic fertilizers. Let us opt for them again.

Recently, studies showed that mother ‘s milk has DDT contents, obviously from consuming food having agrochemicals or pesticides. The indiscriminate use of pesticides kills both predatory and beneficial insects also. Let us bring back use of Neem for pesticides, which kills only predatory insects, or Tulsi for cleaning the atmosphere from suffocating pollution. Planting these trees on war footing in the urgent need of the day. A country needs more than 30 percent forest cover. Trees retain water in soil and act as buffers against the waves. They are necessary for maintaining the regular cycle of seasons. India has less than 20 percent of forest cover.

All this is possible if we opt for information technology. Vast sources of information are available. Let us use them to bring the knowledge to the doorstep of a common man, the executive, the politicians and the judiciary.

Environment is a finely-tuned and extremely well –balanced ecological mechanism. Flora and fauna, birds, animals and, of course, humans play a vital role. Touch one adversely and all suffer. We are courting irreversible disaster.

We have turned our back on Nature. Let us go back to Nature- at least for our survival.
Read the following passage and answer the question below.

A multi-sectoral survey done by the International Clinical Epidemiologists Network (INCLEN) has found that contrary to popular belief, domestic violence in India cut across social and educational status. Economic and gender relations are undergoing changes, with an increasing number of women entering the formal and informal labour markets. This casts the woman in the role of breadwinner as opposed to home-market, leading to increasing use of violence as a mechanism to subjugate her.

The study found that women-educated and illiterate, from rural and urban areas, engaged in paid and unpaid labour-suffer varying degrees of physical and psychological violence by their husbands. Two out of every five married women reported being hit, kicked, beaten or slapped by their husbands. Fifty percent of the women experiencing physical violence also reported physical abuse during pregnancy. A respondent from a slum colony in Bhopal said that she was beaten not only by her husband but also by all members of his family.

In the lower economic strata, abused women typically lead a complicated life. They work as domestic help, which often means unsympathetic employers. Add to this small children who need attention and alcoholic husbands, and it is a vicious cycle.

Why do women face violence at the hands of those who are supposed to provide them security? The range of ‘causes’ varies from not cooking on time to mismanagement of the household to neglect of children. In short, non-adherence to gender roles and responsibilities leads to violence, or the threat of it, is used very often to ensure ‘discipline’, which either maintains gender roles, or prevents changes in gender relations. For example, alcohol and dowry have long been associated with violence, but then, why is it that men beat only their wives and children after drinking? Why is it that women have to bring a host of material possessions to establish and maintain their status within the matrimonial homes? Both these phenomena reflect women’s subordination within marriage, a strongly endorsed gender role in society.

One arena in which gender roles are undergoing rapid change is the economic sphere, with increasing numbers of women entering the formal and informal labour market. The study found that Nagpur, over90 percent of the women who had reported experiencing violence were involved in paid work. The Nagpur data revealed another significant point. More abuse if their husbands were unemployed. This suggests that working women suffer more abuse if their husbands are also unemployed. Gender gap in employment acts as a further trigger for domestic violence.

This should, however, not be interpreted to mean that providing employment opportunities to unemployed men would automatically ensure reduction in violence in against women. On the contrary, violence is frequently used as a mechanism to deal with any attempt at reversal in gender role, which pits ‘man-the –bread-earner’ against ‘woman–the–home-market’.

In a similar vein, the recent National Family Health found that women working for money are more likely to have been beaten in the last 12 months. A respondent from rural Lucknow, sharing her story of marital abuse, said, “He insults me in front of my relatives and neighbours. He used to beat me also but for the past year that has stopped, mainly because he is now in a better job and earning better.”

It is also important to view these findings against the recent trend of employed women seeking help. A recent study by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, found that the number of employed women seeking help at the special cell for women and that women and children went up with increasing year of experiencing violence. Case-workers at the special cell hypothesise that women in paid employment probably have a wider network of support, which enable them to explore alternative options over a longer period of time. That women in regular employment are turning up for counseling and help suggest that they are less willing to tolerate domestic violence.

Economic forces are opening at two dichotomous level that expose women to the risk of violence. Liberalisation has resulted in increased entry of women into the labour market- albeit in the informal sector- leading to a re-negotiation of gender roles. However, the same economic forces are also promoting a consumerist lifestyle that reinforces regressive gender roles, placing women at greater risk as regards domestic violence.

Middle-class women today are being increasingly targeted as the ultimate consumers. The message is to aspire to a lifestyle of acquisition; and women are positioned as instruments through which such acquisition possible. This acquisition is projected by an image of the savvy working wife or a wife who is able to bring all this into the matrimonial home through dowry.

In the changing economic scenario, dowry has entered into societies where it was hitherto unheard of. A whole body of literature documents this emerging phenomenon in various parts of India, like Kerala and Tehri Garhwal. For example, the INCLEN survey found some of the highest rates of dowry dissatisfaction and the reporting of new dowry demands in Thiruvanthapuram in Kerala. It is essential to take cognizance of the wide prevalence of domestic violence, especially as a response to changing gender roles- roles that are being both challenged and reinforced by rapid social and economic transitions. Yet planners and policy-markers position many of these transitions as inevitable consequences of development.

Is domestic violence, them, an inevitable fallout of development? The answer is a categorical no. A development paradigm in which domestic violence is a ‘by-product’, is antithetical to the very goals it seeks to achieve. If, as Novel laureate Amartya Sen says, development is the realization of human rights, then the existence of domestic violence is a fundamental barrier to development.
Choose the word that is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word given in capitals.

REPRESS
Choose the word that is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word given in capitals.

TANGIBLE