0 of 15 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
Information
Please read the following instructions very carefully:
1. You have 10 minutes to complete the Test.
2. The test contains 15 questions – 15 Marks.
3. There is only one correct answer to each question. Click on the most appropriate option to mark it as your answer.
4. You will be awarded 1 mark for each correct answer.
5. There is 1/4 penalty (.25 mark) for each wrong answer.
6. You can change your answer by clicking on some other option.
7. You can unmark your answer by clicking on the “Clear Response” button.
8. You can access the questions in any order within a section or across sections by clicking on the question number given on the number list.
9. You can use rough sheets while taking the test. Do not use calculators, log tables, dictionaries, or any other printed/online reference material during the test.
10. Do not click the button “Submit test” before completing the test. A test once submitted cannot be resumed.
You have already completed the Test before. Hence you can not start it again.
Test is loading...
You must Login OR Register to start the Test.
You have to finish following test, to start this Test:
Thank You for Attempting This Test, Keep It Up...
Your time:
Time has elapsed
Your Final Score is : 0
You have attempted : 0
Number of Correct Questions : 0 and scored 0
Number of Incorrect Questions : 0 and Negative marks 0
Average score | |
Your score |
Rank | Name | Entered on | Marks | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
Table is loading | ||||
No data available | ||||
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Answered
- Review
- Question 1 of 15
1. Question
Directions: – Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.1 – The passage seems to emphasize that the outside world has
CorrectExplanation : Third paragraph of the passage says: “Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor”. This clearly indicates the outside world has misconceptions about the aid given to the poor nations by developed countries.
IncorrectExplanation : Third paragraph of the passage says: “Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor”. This clearly indicates the outside world has misconceptions about the aid given to the poor nations by developed countries.
UnattemptedExplanation : Third paragraph of the passage says: “Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor”. This clearly indicates the outside world has misconceptions about the aid given to the poor nations by developed countries.
- Question 2 of 15
2. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.2 – According to the Westerners the solution to eradicate poverty of African nations lies in
CorrectExplanation : 1st paragraph of the passage; “Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers.” So, (2nd Option) is the correct option.
IncorrectExplanation : 1st paragraph of the passage; “Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers.” So, (2nd Option) is the correct option.
UnattemptedExplanation : 1st paragraph of the passage; “Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers.” So, (2nd Option) is the correct option.
- Question 3 of 15
3. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.3 – The author has given the example of Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan in support of his argument that
CorrectExplanation : Given at the end of 1st paragraph.
IncorrectExplanation : Given at the end of 1st paragraph.
UnattemptedExplanation : Given at the end of 1st paragraph.
- Question 4 of 15
4. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.4 – The author has mentioned Ghana as a country with
CorrectExplanation : last sentence of the 1st Paragraph.
IncorrectExplanation : last sentence of the 1st Paragraph.
UnattemptedExplanation : last sentence of the 1st Paragraph.
- Question 5 of 15
5. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.5 – The cases of malaria in Africa are mainly due to
(A) high temperature.
(B) climatic conditions conducive for breeding.
(C) malaria-carriers’ liking for human blood in preference to that of cattle.CorrectExplanation : Read the last sentences of 2nd Paragraph.
IncorrectExplanation : Read the last sentences of 2nd Paragraph.
UnattemptedExplanation : Read the last sentences of 2nd Paragraph.
- Question 6 of 15
6. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.6 – The remark of former US Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil, is according to the author,
CorrectExplanation : Given in the 3rd paragraph, “He was wrong to believe”
IncorrectExplanation : Given in the 3rd paragraph, “He was wrong to believe”
UnattemptedExplanation : Given in the 3rd paragraph, “He was wrong to believe”
- Question 7 of 15
7. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.7 – President Bush’s statement in a Press Conference in April 2004 indicates that
CorrectExplanation : Read the “Statement” of President Bush in 3rd paragraph.
IncorrectExplanation : Read the “Statement” of President Bush in 3rd paragraph.
UnattemptedExplanation : Read the “Statement” of President Bush in 3rd paragraph.
- Question 8 of 15
8. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.8 – Which of the following statements is TRUE about US aid to the sub-Saharan African countries?
CorrectExplanation : Read the 2nd Sentence of 4th paragraph.
IncorrectExplanation : Read the 2nd Sentence of 4th paragraph.
UnattemptedExplanation : Read the 2nd Sentence of 4th paragraph.
- Question 9 of 15
9. Question
The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely Impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Yet the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can’t explain Africa’s prolonged economic crisis. The claim-that Africa’s corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa: such as Ghana, Malawi Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth.
What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example. Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.
Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world’s poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : “We’ve spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it”. O’Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as “the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry”. Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than Si per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.
From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub-Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa’s debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the “money down the drain” argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it’s worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.
The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation’s generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.
Q.9 – The purpose of the author in writing this passage seems to
CorrectExplanation : Author ने 2 Motives से इस Passage को लिखा है (1) अफ्रीकी देशो के पिछड़ेपन के Reasons के विश्लेषण के लिए और (2) Developed Countries की तरफ से दिए जा रहे आर्थिक सहयोग की सच्चाई उजागर करने के लिए
IncorrectExplanation : Author ने 2 Motives से इस Passage को लिखा है (1) अफ्रीकी देशो के पिछड़ेपन के Reasons के विश्लेषण के लिए और (2) Developed Countries की तरफ से दिए जा रहे आर्थिक सहयोग की सच्चाई उजागर करने के लिए
UnattemptedExplanation : Author ने 2 Motives से इस Passage को लिखा है (1) अफ्रीकी देशो के पिछड़ेपन के Reasons के विश्लेषण के लिए और (2) Developed Countries की तरफ से दिए जा रहे आर्थिक सहयोग की सच्चाई उजागर करने के लिए
- Question 10 of 15
10. Question
Directions: Which of the following word/group of words is MOST NEARLY THE SAME in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage?
Q.10 – Obligation
CorrectIncorrectUnattempted - Question 11 of 15
11. Question
Directions: Which of the following word/group of words is MOST NEARLY THE SAME in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage?
Q.11 – Squander
CorrectIncorrectUnattempted - Question 12 of 15
12. Question
Directions: Which of the following word/group of words is MOST NEARLY THE SAME in meaning as the word printed in bold as used in the passage?
Q.12 – Modest
CorrectExplanation : Passage में Modest का meaning = कम (Amount) है
IncorrectExplanation : Passage में Modest का meaning = कम (Amount) है
UnattemptedExplanation : Passage में Modest का meaning = कम (Amount) है
- Question 13 of 15
13. Question
Directions: Which of the following word/group of words is most OPPOSITE in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage?
Q.13 – MythCorrectIncorrectUnattempted - Question 14 of 15
14. Question
Directions: Which of the following word/group of words is most OPPOSITE in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage?
Q.14 – ExtensiveCorrectExplanation : Sentence में Extensive का meaning है = बड़े पैमाने पर
IncorrectExplanation : Sentence में Extensive का meaning है = बड़े पैमाने पर
UnattemptedExplanation : Sentence में Extensive का meaning है = बड़े पैमाने पर
- Question 15 of 15
15. Question
Directions: Which of the following word/group of words is most OPPOSITE in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage?
Q.15 – ProlongedCorrectIncorrectUnattempted