Lakshya Education MCQs

Question:

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

In the past, the richest states often grew the fastest and the poor ones the slowest. But India's record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the five-year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in customarily poor states trickling up and aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down. assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor.

In fact, miracle growth is globally rare, precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population. Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down; it trickles up. Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom, and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare.

Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the Central government to finance social welfare schemes, farm loan waivers and enormous oil subsidies. This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

Why have countries found it difficult to achieve high growth?

(A) Ensuring an increase in the output among a large number of citizens is difficult.

(B) Corruption of politicians at the grassroots level results in the benefits of growth not reaching the poor.

(C) The government's failure to allocate sufficient income to inclusive social welfare schemes

Options:
A.Only (A)
B.Only (A) & (B)
C.Only (B) & (C)
D.All (A), (B) & (C)
E.None of these
Answer: Option A

Submit Answer & Explaination

Earn Reward Points by submitting Detailed Explaination for this Question

More Questions on This Topic :

Question 1.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

In the past, the richest states often grew the fastest and the poor ones the slowest. But India's record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the five-year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in customarily poor states trickling up and aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down. assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor.

In fact, miracle growth is globally rare, precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population. Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down; it trickles up. Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom, and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare.

Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the Central government to finance social welfare schemes, farm loan waivers and enormous oil subsidies. This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

Which of the following is TRUE in the context of the Passage?

Options:
  1.    India's growth was more inclusive in nature during 2004-2009 than it had been in the past.
  2.    Developed countries use the same model of development as India.
  3.    Widespread growth is best achieved through Central Government-monitored schemes.
  4.    At present India's traditionally poor states are more prosperous than her socially developed ones.
  5.    There should be no government expenditure in social sectors if the current high growth .rate is not maintained.
Answer: Option A
Question 2.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

The suicide attacks by militant Palestinian groups killing large numbers of Israeli civilians and the harsh Israeli response, have raised the renewed hopes of peace in the region. It is Arafat?s leadership and authority that are being severely tested in the latest phase of the west Asian crisis. By accusing the Palestinian Authority (PA) of supporting terrorism by groups, Israel hopes to put pressure on Arafat to act. Arafat, on the other hand, has never looked a less powerful force than he does today. If he acts against the militants and elements in his own Fatah movement sympathetic to them, he risks a Palestinian civil conflict. But if he chooses to do nothing, he faces erosion of his authority and all claim to a central role in the peace process. Whatever he does, sections of the Palestinians will hold that he has gone too far and Israel that he has not gone for enough. This is, of course, why Arafat has invariably shrunk from hard decision. He has refrained from curbing the militant groups, explaining his inaction as necessary to maintain Palestinian unity.

The Palestinian leaderships inability to improve economic conditions for its people has been a decisive factor in the erosion of its ability to act. Palestinians in Gaza have targeted the PA as being responsible for their condition. The Militant organizations have capitalized on the PA?s failure to establish a functioning administrative infrastructure by setting up a parallel welfare system with the help of the millions of dollars. Though the Palestinian security forces claim to have arrested more than 100 militants after the suicide bomb attacks in Israel, the other similar militant groups remain defiant, confident of their popular support and of the certainty that in the ultimate analysis the PA leadership will stop short of decisive action against them.

That the militant groups enjoy popular support in Gaza is hardly surprising. The Gaza Strip today resembles a vast prison camp in which some 1.2 million Palestinians are crammed. Despite the Oslo Accord, 7000 Israeli settlers still remain in 20 percent of the Gazas area and are protected by heavily armed Israeli forces. With its recent blockade of and extensive incursion into PA controlled territories, the Israeli government has placed the whole civil society in Palestine under siege. Over 450 NGOs, eight universities and numerous other educational, civic, social, and developmental and health institutions have had their work impeded and their vital services to the population blocked. An international conference on Israels treatment of human rights in West Bank and Gaza, attended by signatories to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, that has opened in Switzerland overriding Israeli and American protests, is expected to censor Israel for its treatment of civilians in the Palestinian territories.

Arafats standing among Palestinians rests on the authority conferred on the PA by the international community to represent and speak for the Palestinians. Even the major militant group has so far never openly challenged Arafats leadership. Israels latest vicious attacks directed against the PA and Arafat present the international community with the danger that this precarious balance of power in the Palestinian community may be destroyed. Continuance of the Israeli attacks can only further radicalize and harden the attitudes of ordinary Palestinians. On the other hand, Israeli moves to freeze further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and, as soon as security conditions permit it, ease the economic blockade of Palestinian towns? However remote such measures appear just now? Alone can restore the authority of the PA and give it a chance to get a grip on Palestinian militancy.

Which of the following best explains the word remote as used in the passage?

Options:
  1.    Far away from reality
  2.    Distant
  3.    Most likely to happen
  4.    Control in someone else hand
  5.    None of these
Answer: Option A
Question 3.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

The suicide attacks by militant Palestinian groups killing large numbers of Israeli civilians and the harsh Israeli response, have raised the renewed hopes of peace in the region. It is Arafat?s leadership and authority that are being severely tested in the latest phase of the west Asian crisis. By accusing the Palestinian Authority (PA) of supporting terrorism by groups, Israel hopes to put pressure on Arafat to act. Arafat, on the other hand, has never looked a less powerful force than he does today. If he acts against the militants and elements in his own Fatah movement sympathetic to them, he risks a Palestinian civil conflict. But if he chooses to do nothing, he faces erosion of his authority and all claim to a central role in the peace process. Whatever he does, sections of the Palestinians will hold that he has gone too far and Israel that he has not gone for enough. This is, of course, why Arafat has invariably shrunk from hard decision. He has refrained from curbing the militant groups, explaining his inaction as necessary to maintain Palestinian unity.

The Palestinian leaderships inability to improve economic conditions for its people has been a decisive factor in the erosion of its ability to act. Palestinians in Gaza have targeted the PA as being responsible for their condition. The Militant organizations have capitalized on the PA?s failure to establish a functioning administrative infrastructure by setting up a parallel welfare system with the help of the millions of dollars. Though the Palestinian security forces claim to have arrested more than 100 militants after the suicide bomb attacks in Israel, the other similar militant groups remain defiant, confident of their popular support and of the certainty that in the ultimate analysis the PA leadership will stop short of decisive action against them.

That the militant groups enjoy popular support in Gaza is hardly surprising. The Gaza Strip today resembles a vast prison camp in which some 1.2 million Palestinians are crammed. Despite the Oslo Accord, 7000 Israeli settlers still remain in 20 percent of the Gazas area and are protected by heavily armed Israeli forces. With its recent blockade of and extensive incursion into PA controlled territories, the Israeli government has placed the whole civil society in Palestine under siege. Over 450 NGOs, eight universities and numerous other educational, civic, social, and developmental and health institutions have had their work impeded and their vital services to the population blocked. An international conference on Israels treatment of human rights in West Bank and Gaza, attended by signatories to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, that has opened in Switzerland overriding Israeli and American protests, is expected to censor Israel for its treatment of civilians in the Palestinian territories.

Arafats standing among Palestinians rests on the authority conferred on the PA by the international community to represent and speak for the Palestinians. Even the major militant group has so far never openly challenged Arafats leadership. Israels latest vicious attacks directed against the PA and Arafat present the international community with the danger that this precarious balance of power in the Palestinian community may be destroyed. Continuance of the Israeli attacks can only further radicalize and harden the attitudes of ordinary Palestinians. On the other hand, Israeli moves to freeze further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and, as soon as security conditions permit it, ease the economic blockade of Palestinian towns? However remote such measures appear just now? Alone can restore the authority of the PA and give it a chance to get a grip on Palestinian militancy.

Which of the following best explains the word vicious as used in the passage?

Options:
  1.    Dangerous
  2.    Fatal
  3.    Reoccurring and cyclic
  4.    Cyclic but not reoccurring
  5.    None of these
Answer: Option C
Question 4.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

In the past, the richest states often grew the fastest and the poor ones the slowest. But India's record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the five-year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in customarily poor states trickling up and aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down. assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor.

In fact, miracle growth is globally rare, precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population. Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down; it trickles up. Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom, and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare.

Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the Central government to finance social welfare schemes, farm loan waivers and enormous oil subsidies. This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

To which of the following factors does the author attribute India's high growth rate during 2004-09?

Options:
  1.    Tremendous growth of the vast majority of richer states
  2.    Change in national-level policies to benefit only large well-off states
  3.    Gains of richer states have been used to fund social welfare schemes in the larger states.
  4.    Improved productivity of traditionally low-performing states.
  5.    None of these
Answer: Option D
Question 5.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

In the past, the richest states often grew the fastest and the poor ones the slowest. But India's record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the five-year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in customarily poor states trickling up and aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down. assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor.

In fact, miracle growth is globally rare, precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population. Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down; it trickles up. Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom, and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare.

Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the Central government to finance social welfare schemes, farm loan waivers and enormous oil subsidies. This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

Which of the following best describes the author's view of trickle-down theory?

Options:
  1.    It ensures accountability of the government even at the grassroots level.
  2.    It has been effective in helping poor states catch up with richer ones.
  3.    It promotes inclusive growth over quick growth.
  4.    It targets social welfare at the cost of economic growth.
  5.    It has largely failed to drive sustained growth.
Answer: Option E
Question 6.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

In the past, the richest states often grew the fastest and the poor ones the slowest. But India's record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the five-year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in customarily poor states trickling up and aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down. assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor.

In fact, miracle growth is globally rare, precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population. Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down; it trickles up. Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom, and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare.

Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the Central government to finance social welfare schemes, farm loan waivers and enormous oil subsidies. This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

What is the author's objective in writing this passage?

Options:
  1.    Advocating greater autonomy for the richest states in India
  2.    Urging the government to invest in social development to facilitate economic growth
  3.    Criticising traditional economic principles on which the Indian economy is based
  4.    Encouraging larger states to disburse more wealth at the grassroots level
  5.    None of these
Answer: Option C