Reading Comprehension -Test 19

Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions. Certain words are given in bold to help you locate them while answering same of the questions.

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.1 – According to the passage, which of the following is a reason for the author’s prediction regarding N11 countries?

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.2 – What is the author’s view of globalisation’s “second unbundling”?

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.3 – Choose the word which is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word TUMBLING given in bold as used in the passage.

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.4 – What do the comparative statistics of 2007 and 2013 for BRICs countries published by, the IMF as cited in the passage indicate?

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.5 – What effect did rising economies of BRICs have on the global economy?

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.6 – What does the phrase “Their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as it once did” convey in the context of the passage?

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.7 – Which of the following best describes ‘catch-up growth’?

Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing
power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is calIed “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.

Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labour sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.

After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalisation’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.

Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11
cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion -less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the Nil is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be – twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation – or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Q.8 – Which of the following can be said about ‘convergence with a vengeance?

(A) After the 1990s advanced economies like America were open to the idea of free trade and globalization.
(B) There were huge technology advances which were conducive to allowing businesses to
spread their area of operations.
(C) Rich economies felt threatened by the competition from China.

Q. 9 – Choose the word which is OPPOSITE in meaning to the word EXPANDED given in bold as used in the passage.

Q. 10 – What is the author’s main objective in writing the passage?

(A) To urge emerging economies to deal with growth, which can be disruptive, maturely and
without conflict
(B) To point out that while the period of growth of BRICs was disruptive this disruption has
almost come to a close.
(C) To criticise advanced economies for their handling of growth and promoting competition and conflict in certain regions