ENGLISH - Online Test
Q1.
Directions: Below is given a passage followed by several possible inferences which can be drawn from the facts stated in the passage. You have to examine each inference separately in the context of the passage and decide upon its degree of truth or falsity.
Between 2002-03 and 2006-07, Indian economy grew annually at 8.7% led by the services sector at 9% per year. In 1990, India's share of services, at 40% of GDP was consistent with its per capita income for low-income country. By 2001, its share of one-half of the GDP was higher by five per cent age points, compared to the average for low-income countries. Economic reforms that energized the private corporate sector and technological changes that opened up new vistas in telecommunications, IT and outsourcing are believed to be responsible for the impressive performance. However, the services led growth remains a puzzle at a low per capita income, with 55% of the work force still engaged in agriculture, and when agriculture decelerated and industry stagnated-3defying a styled fact in economics.
Less than half of total workforce is engaged in Agricultural sector in India.
Answer : Option E
Explaination / Solution:
Inference is definitely false since it contradicts the given facts:
“The services led growth remains a puzzle at a low per capita income, with 55% of the work force still engaged in agriculture”
Q2.
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
As bitcoin launched in 2009, most early adopters saw its disruptive potential. While bitcoin has stalled for some time approaching a valid use of the term “stagnation”, cryptocurrency in a larger context is still just as disruptive. In 2011, I stated that bitcoin (cryptocurrency) will do to banks what e-mail did to the postal services. This is not just true, but it will be even more brutal to governments, and by extension, governmental services.
Now, governments love anything that smells like innovation, because it means jobs, this magic word that smells of magic unicorns to anybody in government. Therefore, people who like innovation are nurturing this bitcoin thing, this cryptocurrency thing, this ethereum thing (as if governments made a difference, but still). Lots of startups in tip-of-the-spear financial technology means that their government may get a head start over other governments. They have no idea that cryptocurrency will radically scale back the power of government, not just their own one, but also all those other governments over which it seeks a competitive edge.
Individual people in government can also love bitcoin because it gives them something to do. More specifically, it gives them something to regulate. Fortunately, other people in government see that this gives them something to do, which is to hold those government regulators with an overdeveloped sense of order somewhat in check. You’ll hear no shortage of wannabe regulators saying that “bitcoin is bad because it’s being used in crime and contraband trade!”, to which I usually respond, “well, bitcoin is a currency, so I mean you put it in relation to the US Dollar, which then… is not used in crime and contraband trade, is this the argument you’re using to support your position?”, at which point the discussion generally changes topic.
This completely disregards the observation that bitcoin and cryptocurrency were designed to not submit to regulation in the first place. Well, at least not governmental regulation. It is heavily regulated – but by its source code, and by its source code alone.
The reason this will cripple today’s governments — today’s idea of what a government is and does — is because today’s economy is built on one layer doing actual work and three layers of abstraction on top.
At the first and bottom layer of our economy are the individual people doing all the actual work.
The second layer on top of the first is the abstraction we call corporations, which is a way to organize our economy and optimize transaction costs.
The third layer on top of the second would be banks, which handle money for corporations and individual people in a middleman gatekeeper position.
Finally, the fourth layer is the government, which takes advantage of the banks’ gatekeeper position to siphon off taxes from money flows in order to fund itself and governmental services. In other words, layer four completely depends on layer three for its operations – or at least for the relative simplicity of funding its operations.
Now, what bitcoin and cryptocurrency do is make away with the banks – cutting them out of the loop entirely, making them redundant, obsolete, dinosaurified. This resulting absence of anything where banks used to be creates an air gap between the functional part of the economy – people and corporations – and governments who want funding.
The way governments want to tap all money flows in order to fund itself is not entirely unlike how the surveillance agencies want to tap all information flows in order to have an information advantage. In this way, the deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. The government can no longer reach into money flows and grab what it wants, but will be dependent on people actively sending it money. The government can’t point a gun at a computer and have it give up its money; you can only make a computer operator feel very sorry for not voluntarily producing the keys to that money. So the government is no longer able to collect taxes without the consent – even if coerced and forced consent – of the people being thus collected.
The deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance.
Governments, and individual people in government, have no idea about this bigger picture. They’re far too wrapped up in things-as-usual to notice. They won’t see it coming until it’s already happened.
When this happens, there will be no shortage of people in government who suddenly want to regulate cryptocurrency – only to find out it will be as effective as regulating gravity. When this happens, it will be redefined from a coercive Colossus able to take what it wants and do what it wants into a construct that actually depends on people wanting to fund it. This will be a very interesting time to live in. While today’s governments will see themselves as getting crippled, I suspect most citizens will regard it as unquestionably healthy that governments will actually begin to depend on the approval of the people at large.
We’re just beginning to see the changes to society that the Internet brings. This is one of them.
Which of the following can be a suitable title for the given passage?
Answer : Option D
Explaination / Solution:
The main objective of the passage is to show the adverse effects of the use of cryptocurrency on the governments. Hence, option D is the correct answer.
Q3. Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences A., B., C., D., E. and F. in a proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions that follow.
A. So, the Sun retired behind a cloud and the Wind began to blow hard upon the traveller.
B. The Sun and the Wind were disputing who was stronger between them.
C. But the harder he blew the more closely the traveller wrapped his coat around him.
D. Then the Sun came out and shone in all his glory upon the traveller, who soon found it too hot to walk with his coat on.
E. Suddenly they saw a traveller walking down the road, and the Sun said, “I see a way to settle our dispute.”
F. Whichever of us can cause the traveller below to take off his coat shall be regarded as the stronger one.
Which of the following should be the FIFTH sentence after rearrangement?
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
No Explaination.
Q4. Direction: Read the sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If the given sentence is correct, the answer is 'No error'. Ignore the errors of punctuation, if any.
In some areas of India, many young men and women are delaying their marriages (1) / to pursue their career, a result of rising education levels (2)/ however, most Indian households are conservative (3) / and avoid discussions about sex. (4)
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
The error lies in part 2 of the sentence where the word ‘career’ in singular form is incorrect and needs to be replaced with the word in the plural form ‘careers’ as the subject is plural and the pronoun ‘their’ has been used as well. It should read as:’..to pursue their careers, a result of..’
Q5.
Directions: Below is given a passage followed by several possible inferences which can be drawn from the facts stated in the passage. You have to examine each inference separately in the context of the passage and decide upon its degree of truth or falsity.
Between 2002-03 and 2006-07, Indian economy grew annually at 8.7% led by the services sector at 9% per year. In 1990, India's share of services, at 40% of GDP was consistent with its per capita income for low-income country. By 2001, its share of one-half of the GDP was higher by five per cent age points, compared to the average for low-income countries. Economic reforms that energized the private corporate sector and technological changes that opened up new vistas in telecommunications, IT and outsourcing are believed to be responsible for the impressive performance. However, the services led growth remains a puzzle at a low per capita income, with 55% of the work force still engaged in agriculture, and when agriculture decelerated and industry stagnated-3defying a styled fact in economics.
Share of services sector in India's GDP has crossed the half way mark in early 2000.
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
Inference is probably true as it is clear from the passage i.e. “By 2001, its share of one-half of the GDP was higher by five per cent age points”
Q6.
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
As bitcoin launched in 2009, most early adopters saw its disruptive potential. While bitcoin has stalled for some time approaching a valid use of the term “stagnation”, cryptocurrency in a larger context is still just as disruptive. In 2011, I stated that bitcoin (cryptocurrency) will do to banks what e-mail did to the postal services. This is not just true, but it will be even more brutal to governments, and by extension, governmental services.
Now, governments love anything that smells like innovation, because it means jobs, this magic word that smells of magic unicorns to anybody in government. Therefore, people who like innovation are nurturing this bitcoin thing, this cryptocurrency thing, this ethereum thing (as if governments made a difference, but still). Lots of startups in tip-of-the-spear financial technology means that their government may get a head start over other governments. They have no idea that cryptocurrency will radically scale back the power of government, not just their own one, but also all those other governments over which it seeks a competitive edge.
Individual people in government can also love bitcoin because it gives them something to do. More specifically, it gives them something to regulate. Fortunately, other people in government see that this gives them something to do, which is to hold those government regulators with an overdeveloped sense of order somewhat in check. You’ll hear no shortage of wannabe regulators saying that “bitcoin is bad because it’s being used in crime and contraband trade!”, to which I usually respond, “well, bitcoin is a currency, so I mean you put it in relation to the US Dollar, which then… is not used in crime and contraband trade, is this the argument you’re using to support your position?”, at which point the discussion generally changes topic.
This completely disregards the observation that bitcoin and cryptocurrency were designed to not submit to regulation in the first place. Well, at least not governmental regulation. It is heavily regulated – but by its source code, and by its source code alone.
The reason this will cripple today’s governments — today’s idea of what a government is and does — is because today’s economy is built on one layer doing actual work and three layers of abstraction on top.
At the first and bottom layer of our economy are the individual people doing all the actual work.
The second layer on top of the first is the abstraction we call corporations, which is a way to organize our economy and optimize transaction costs.
The third layer on top of the second would be banks, which handle money for corporations and individual people in a middleman gatekeeper position.
Finally, the fourth layer is the government, which takes advantage of the banks’ gatekeeper position to siphon off taxes from money flows in order to fund itself and governmental services. In other words, layer four completely depends on layer three for its operations – or at least for the relative simplicity of funding its operations.
Now, what bitcoin and cryptocurrency do is make away with the banks – cutting them out of the loop entirely, making them redundant, obsolete, dinosaurified. This resulting absence of anything where banks used to be creates an air gap between the functional part of the economy – people and corporations – and governments who want funding.
The way governments want to tap all money flows in order to fund itself is not entirely unlike how the surveillance agencies want to tap all information flows in order to have an information advantage. In this way, the deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. The government can no longer reach into money flows and grab what it wants, but will be dependent on people actively sending it money. The government can’t point a gun at a computer and have it give up its money; you can only make a computer operator feel very sorry for not voluntarily producing the keys to that money. So the government is no longer able to collect taxes without the consent – even if coerced and forced consent – of the people being thus collected.
The deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance.
Governments, and individual people in government, have no idea about this bigger picture. They’re far too wrapped up in things-as-usual to notice. They won’t see it coming until it’s already happened.
When this happens, there will be no shortage of people in government who suddenly want to regulate cryptocurrency – only to find out it will be as effective as regulating gravity. When this happens, it will be redefined from a coercive Colossus able to take what it wants and do what it wants into a construct that actually depends on people wanting to fund it. This will be a very interesting time to live in. While today’s governments will see themselves as getting crippled, I suspect most citizens will regard it as unquestionably healthy that governments will actually begin to depend on the approval of the people at large.
We’re just beginning to see the changes to society that the Internet brings. This is one of them.
It can be inferred that the deployment of cryptocurrency and the deployment of end-to-end encryption are alike in a way that they-
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
This can be interpreted from these lines, “The way governments want to tap all money flows in order to fund itself is not entirely unlike how the surveillance agencies want to tap all information flows in order to have an information advantage. In this way, the deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. The government can no longer reach into money flows and grab what it wants, but will be dependent on people actively sending it money.”
Q7. Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences A., B., C., D., E. and F. in a proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions that follow.
A. So, the Sun retired behind a cloud and the Wind began to blow hard upon the traveller.
B. The Sun and the Wind were disputing who was stronger between them.
C. But the harder he blew the more closely the traveller wrapped his coat around him.
D. Then the Sun came out and shone in all his glory upon the traveller, who soon found it too hot to walk with his coat on.
E. Suddenly they saw a traveller walking down the road, and the Sun said, “I see a way to settle our dispute.”
F. Whichever of us can cause the traveller below to take off his coat shall be regarded as the stronger one.
Which of the following should be the FIRST sentence after rearrangement?
Answer : Option A
Explaination / Solution:
No Explaination.
Q8. Read the sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (E). Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.
Germany is a global hub for manufacturing,(1)/ and the largest manufacturing economy in (2)/ the world as well as the largest(3)/ exporter of goods in the world.(4)/No error (5)
Answer : Option B
Explaination / Solution:
The error lies in part 2 of the sentence as the verb ‘is’ is missing after the conjunction ‘and’. It is mandatory that ‘is’ is used here to continue the sentence properly as it mentions another fact about the subject. Without the verb it is incorrectly framed. It should read as”..and is the largest manufacturing..”. Thus option B is the correct answer.
Q9.
Directions: Below is given a passage followed by several possible inferences which can be drawn from the facts stated in the passage. You have to examine each inference separately in the context of the passage and decide upon its degree of truth or falsity.
Between 2002-03 and 2006-07, Indian economy grew annually at 8.7% led by the services sector at 9% per year. In 1990, India's share of services, at 40% of GDP was consistent with its per capita income for low-income country. By 2001, its share of one-half of the GDP was higher by five per cent age points, compared to the average for low-income countries. Economic reforms that energized the private corporate sector and technological changes that opened up new vistas in telecommunications, IT and outsourcing are believed to be responsible for the impressive performance. However, the services led growth remains a puzzle at a low per capita income, with 55% of the work force still engaged in agriculture, and when agriculture decelerated and industry stagnated-3defying a styled fact in economics.
In early nineties, the share of services sector in GDP for low per capita income group of countries is about 40 per cent.
Answer : Option A
Explaination / Solution:
It is true as given in the second line of the passage i.e. “In 1990, India's share of services, at 40% of GDP was consistent with its per capita income for low-income country.”
Q10.
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
As bitcoin launched in 2009, most early adopters saw its disruptive potential. While bitcoin has stalled for some time approaching a valid use of the term “stagnation”, cryptocurrency in a larger context is still just as disruptive. In 2011, I stated that bitcoin (cryptocurrency) will do to banks what e-mail did to the postal services. This is not just true, but it will be even more brutal to governments, and by extension, governmental services.
Now, governments love anything that smells like innovation, because it means jobs, this magic word that smells of magic unicorns to anybody in government. Therefore, people who like innovation are nurturing this bitcoin thing, this cryptocurrency thing, this ethereum thing (as if governments made a difference, but still). Lots of startups in tip-of-the-spear financial technology means that their government may get a head start over other governments. They have no idea that cryptocurrency will radically scale back the power of government, not just their own one, but also all those other governments over which it seeks a competitive edge.
Individual people in government can also love bitcoin because it gives them something to do. More specifically, it gives them something to regulate. Fortunately, other people in government see that this gives them something to do, which is to hold those government regulators with an overdeveloped sense of order somewhat in check. You’ll hear no shortage of wannabe regulators saying that “bitcoin is bad because it’s being used in crime and contraband trade!”, to which I usually respond, “well, bitcoin is a currency, so I mean you put it in relation to the US Dollar, which then… is not used in crime and contraband trade, is this the argument you’re using to support your position?”, at which point the discussion generally changes topic.
This completely disregards the observation that bitcoin and cryptocurrency were designed to not submit to regulation in the first place. Well, at least not governmental regulation. It is heavily regulated – but by its source code, and by its source code alone.
The reason this will cripple today’s governments — today’s idea of what a government is and does — is because today’s economy is built on one layer doing actual work and three layers of abstraction on top.
At the first and bottom layer of our economy are the individual people doing all the actual work.
The second layer on top of the first is the abstraction we call corporations, which is a way to organize our economy and optimize transaction costs.
The third layer on top of the second would be banks, which handle money for corporations and individual people in a middleman gatekeeper position.
Finally, the fourth layer is the government, which takes advantage of the banks’ gatekeeper position to siphon off taxes from money flows in order to fund itself and governmental services. In other words, layer four completely depends on layer three for its operations – or at least for the relative simplicity of funding its operations.
Now, what bitcoin and cryptocurrency do is make away with the banks – cutting them out of the loop entirely, making them redundant, obsolete, dinosaurified. This resulting absence of anything where banks used to be creates an air gap between the functional part of the economy – people and corporations – and governments who want funding.
The way governments want to tap all money flows in order to fund itself is not entirely unlike how the surveillance agencies want to tap all information flows in order to have an information advantage. In this way, the deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance. The government can no longer reach into money flows and grab what it wants, but will be dependent on people actively sending it money. The government can’t point a gun at a computer and have it give up its money; you can only make a computer operator feel very sorry for not voluntarily producing the keys to that money. So the government is no longer able to collect taxes without the consent – even if coerced and forced consent – of the people being thus collected.
The deployment of cryptocurrency is to tax collection what deployment of end-to-end encryption is to mass surveillance.
Governments, and individual people in government, have no idea about this bigger picture. They’re far too wrapped up in things-as-usual to notice. They won’t see it coming until it’s already happened.
When this happens, there will be no shortage of people in government who suddenly want to regulate cryptocurrency – only to find out it will be as effective as regulating gravity. When this happens, it will be redefined from a coercive Colossus able to take what it wants and do what it wants into a construct that actually depends on people wanting to fund it. This will be a very interesting time to live in. While today’s governments will see themselves as getting crippled, I suspect most citizens will regard it as unquestionably healthy that governments will actually begin to depend on the approval of the people at large.
We’re just beginning to see the changes to society that the Internet brings. This is one of them.
Which of the following statements can be definitely concluded in the context of cryptocurrencies?
(i) Some regulators believe that cryptocurrencies are generally used in crime and contraband
(ii) At present, the use of Bitcoin has lost momentum
(iii) Cryptocurrencies are regulated by their sourcecode
(i) Some regulators believe that cryptocurrencies are generally used in crime and contraband
(ii) At present, the use of Bitcoin has lost momentum
(iii) Cryptocurrencies are regulated by their sourcecode
Answer : Option C
Explaination / Solution:
Statement (i) can be interpreted from these lines, “You’ll hear no shortage of wannabe regulators saying that “bitcoin is bad because it’s being used in crime and contraband trade!””
Statement (ii) can be interpreted from these lines, “While bitcoin has stalled for some time approaching a valid use of the term “stagnation”, cryptocurrency in a larger context is still just as disruptive.”
Statement (iii) can be interpreted from these lines, “Well, at least not governmental regulation. It is heavily regulated – but by its source code, and by its source code alone.”
