Loading....
Coupon Accepted Successfully!

Practice Papers

Open Flashcards

Practice Test-12

Question
38 out of 60
 

Chandrayan I was launched on 22nd October, 2008 in India from :



A Bengaluru
B Sri Harikota

C Chennai
D Ahmedabad

Ans. B

Practice Test-12 Flashcard List

60 flashcards
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
Read the following passage and answer the questions. While the British rule in India was detrimental to the economic development of the country, it did help in starting of the process of modernizing Indian society and formed several progressive institutions during that process. One of the most beneficial institutions, which were initiated by the British, was democracy. Nobody can dispute that despite its many shortcomings, democracy was and is far better alternative to the arbitrary rule of the rajas and nawabs, which prevailed in India in the pre-British days. However, one of the harmful traditions of British democracy inherited by India was that of conflict instead of cooperation between elected members. This was its essential feature. The party, which got the support of the majority of elected members, formed the Government while the others constituted a standing opposition. The existence of the opposition to those in power was and is regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In principle, democracy consists of rule by the people; but where direct rule is not possible, it rules by persons elected by the people. It is natural that there would be some differences of opinion among the elected members as in the rest of the society. Normally, members of any organization have differences of opinion between themselves on different issues but they manage to work on the basis of a consensus and they do not normally form a division between some who are in majority and are placed in power, while treating the others as in opposition. The members of an organization usually work on consensus. Consensus simply means that after an adequate discussion, members agree that the majority opinion may prevail for the time being. Thus, persons who form a majority on one issue and whose opinion is allowed to prevail may not be on the same side if there is a difference on some other issue. It was largely by accident that instead of this normal procedure, a two-party system came to prevail in Britain and that is now being generally taken as the best method of democratic rule. Many democratically inclined persons in India regret that such a two-party system was not brought about in the country. It appears that to have two parties in India – of more or less equal strength – is a virtual impossibility. Those who regret the absence of a two-party system should take the reasons into consideration. When the two-party system got established in Britain, there were two groups among the rulers (consisting of a limited electrorate) who had the same economic interests among themselves and who therefore formed two groups within the selected members of Parliament. There were members of the British aristocracy (which landed interests and consisting of lord, barons etc.) and members of the new commercial class consisting of merchants and artisans. These groups were more or less of equal strength and they were able to establish their separate rule at different times. In pre-British period, when India was ruled by the independent rulers : A Peace and prosperity prevailed in the society B People were isolated from political affairs C Public opinion was inevitable for policy-making D Law was equal for one and all
12)
Read the following passage and answer the questions. While the British rule in India was detrimental to the economic development of the country, it did help in starting of the process of modernizing Indian society and formed several progressive institutions during that process. One of the most beneficial institutions, which were initiated by the British, was democracy. Nobody can dispute that despite its many shortcomings, democracy was and is far better alternative to the arbitrary rule of the rajas and nawabs, which prevailed in India in the pre-British days. However, one of the harmful traditions of British democracy inherited by India was that of conflict instead of cooperation between elected members. This was its essential feature. The party, which got the support of the majority of elected members, formed the Government while the others constituted a standing opposition. The existence of the opposition to those in power was and is regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In principle, democracy consists of rule by the people; but where direct rule is not possible, it rules by persons elected by the people. It is natural that there would be some differences of opinion among the elected members as in the rest of the society. Normally, members of any organization have differences of opinion between themselves on different issues but they manage to work on the basis of a consensus and they do not normally form a division between some who are in majority and are placed in power, while treating the others as in opposition. The members of an organization usually work on consensus. Consensus simply means that after an adequate discussion, members agree that the majority opinion may prevail for the time being. Thus, persons who form a majority on one issue and whose opinion is allowed to prevail may not be on the same side if there is a difference on some other issue. It was largely by accident that instead of this normal procedure, a two-party system came to prevail in Britain and that is now being generally taken as the best method of democratic rule. Many democratically inclined persons in India regret that such a two-party system was not brought about in the country. It appears that to have two parties in India – of more or less equal strength – is a virtual impossibility. Those who regret the absence of a two-party system should take the reasons into consideration. When the two-party system got established in Britain, there were two groups among the rulers (consisting of a limited electrorate) who had the same economic interests among themselves and who therefore formed two groups within the selected members of Parliament. There were members of the British aristocracy (which landed interests and consisting of lord, barons etc.) and members of the new commercial class consisting of merchants and artisans. These groups were more or less of equal strength and they were able to establish their separate rule at different times. What is the distinguishing feature of the democracy practised in Britain ? A End of the rule of might is right. B Rule of the people, by the people and for the people. C It has stood the test of time. D Cooperation between elected members.
13)
Read the following passage and answer the questions. While the British rule in India was detrimental to the economic development of the country, it did help in starting of the process of modernizing Indian society and formed several progressive institutions during that process. One of the most beneficial institutions, which were initiated by the British, was democracy. Nobody can dispute that despite its many shortcomings, democracy was and is far better alternative to the arbitrary rule of the rajas and nawabs, which prevailed in India in the pre-British days. However, one of the harmful traditions of British democracy inherited by India was that of conflict instead of cooperation between elected members. This was its essential feature. The party, which got the support of the majority of elected members, formed the Government while the others constituted a standing opposition. The existence of the opposition to those in power was and is regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In principle, democracy consists of rule by the people; but where direct rule is not possible, it rules by persons elected by the people. It is natural that there would be some differences of opinion among the elected members as in the rest of the society. Normally, members of any organization have differences of opinion between themselves on different issues but they manage to work on the basis of a consensus and they do not normally form a division between some who are in majority and are placed in power, while treating the others as in opposition. The members of an organization usually work on consensus. Consensus simply means that after an adequate discussion, members agree that the majority opinion may prevail for the time being. Thus, persons who form a majority on one issue and whose opinion is allowed to prevail may not be on the same side if there is a difference on some other issue. It was largely by accident that instead of this normal procedure, a two-party system came to prevail in Britain and that is now being generally taken as the best method of democratic rule. Many democratically inclined persons in India regret that such a two-party system was not brought about in the country. It appears that to have two parties in India – of more or less equal strength – is a virtual impossibility. Those who regret the absence of a two-party system should take the reasons into consideration. When the two-party system got established in Britain, there were two groups among the rulers (consisting of a limited electrorate) who had the same economic interests among themselves and who therefore formed two groups within the selected members of Parliament. There were members of the British aristocracy (which landed interests and consisting of lord, barons etc.) and members of the new commercial class consisting of merchants and artisans. These groups were more or less of equal strength and they were able to establish their separate rule at different times. Democracy is practised where : A elected members form a uniform opinion regarding policy matter. B opposition is more powerful than the ruling combine. C representatives of masses. D None of these.
14)
Read the following passage and answer the questions. While the British rule in India was detrimental to the economic development of the country, it did help in starting of the process of modernizing Indian society and formed several progressive institutions during that process. One of the most beneficial institutions, which were initiated by the British, was democracy. Nobody can dispute that despite its many shortcomings, democracy was and is far better alternative to the arbitrary rule of the rajas and nawabs, which prevailed in India in the pre-British days. However, one of the harmful traditions of British democracy inherited by India was that of conflict instead of cooperation between elected members. This was its essential feature. The party, which got the support of the majority of elected members, formed the Government while the others constituted a standing opposition. The existence of the opposition to those in power was and is regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In principle, democracy consists of rule by the people; but where direct rule is not possible, it rules by persons elected by the people. It is natural that there would be some differences of opinion among the elected members as in the rest of the society. Normally, members of any organization have differences of opinion between themselves on different issues but they manage to work on the basis of a consensus and they do not normally form a division between some who are in majority and are placed in power, while treating the others as in opposition. The members of an organization usually work on consensus. Consensus simply means that after an adequate discussion, members agree that the majority opinion may prevail for the time being. Thus, persons who form a majority on one issue and whose opinion is allowed to prevail may not be on the same side if there is a difference on some other issue. It was largely by accident that instead of this normal procedure, a two-party system came to prevail in Britain and that is now being generally taken as the best method of democratic rule. Many democratically inclined persons in India regret that such a two-party system was not brought about in the country. It appears that to have two parties in India – of more or less equal strength – is a virtual impossibility. Those who regret the absence of a two-party system should take the reasons into consideration. When the two-party system got established in Britain, there were two groups among the rulers (consisting of a limited electrorate) who had the same economic interests among themselves and who therefore formed two groups within the selected members of Parliament. There were members of the British aristocracy (which landed interests and consisting of lord, barons etc.) and members of the new commercial class consisting of merchants and artisans. These groups were more or less of equal strength and they were able to establish their separate rule at different times. Which of the following is true about the British rule in India ? A It was behind the modernisation of the Indian society. B India gained economically during that period. C Various establishments were formed for the purpose of progress. D None of these.
15)
Read the following passage and answer the questions. While the British rule in India was detrimental to the economic development of the country, it did help in starting of the process of modernizing Indian society and formed several progressive institutions during that process. One of the most beneficial institutions, which were initiated by the British, was democracy. Nobody can dispute that despite its many shortcomings, democracy was and is far better alternative to the arbitrary rule of the rajas and nawabs, which prevailed in India in the pre-British days. However, one of the harmful traditions of British democracy inherited by India was that of conflict instead of cooperation between elected members. This was its essential feature. The party, which got the support of the majority of elected members, formed the Government while the others constituted a standing opposition. The existence of the opposition to those in power was and is regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In principle, democracy consists of rule by the people; but where direct rule is not possible, it rules by persons elected by the people. It is natural that there would be some differences of opinion among the elected members as in the rest of the society. Normally, members of any organization have differences of opinion between themselves on different issues but they manage to work on the basis of a consensus and they do not normally form a division between some who are in majority and are placed in power, while treating the others as in opposition. The members of an organization usually work on consensus. Consensus simply means that after an adequate discussion, members agree that the majority opinion may prevail for the time being. Thus, persons who form a majority on one issue and whose opinion is allowed to prevail may not be on the same side if there is a difference on some other issue. It was largely by accident that instead of this normal procedure, a two-party system came to prevail in Britain and that is now being generally taken as the best method of democratic rule. Many democratically inclined persons in India regret that such a two-party system was not brought about in the country. It appears that to have two parties in India – of more or less equal strength – is a virtual impossibility. Those who regret the absence of a two-party system should take the reasons into consideration. When the two-party system got established in Britain, there were two groups among the rulers (consisting of a limited electrorate) who had the same economic interests among themselves and who therefore formed two groups within the selected members of Parliament. There were members of the British aristocracy (which landed interests and consisting of lord, barons etc.) and members of the new commercial class consisting of merchants and artisans. These groups were more or less of equal strength and they were able to establish their separate rule at different times. Who became the members of the new commercial class during that time ? A British Aristocrats B Lord and barons C Political persons D Merchants and artisans
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
Read the passage and answer the questions. The surge witnessed in mergers, amalgamations and takeover of companies during the past few years is indicative of the shape of things to come. While these concepts are not new and were recognised even in the Companies Act of 1913, the compulsions have undergone a dramatic change. In the past, mergers and acquisitions were used largely as an instrument for revival of sick units or for obtaining tax benefits. It was not uncommon for a business house to merge a sick company with a profit-making one and claim tax benefits. The objective was not necessarily to achieve faster growth. The liberalisation process witnessed during the late seventies and the eighties and particularly the relaxation of some of the restrictive provisions of MRTP Act and FERA, brought about a qualitative change in the mergers and amalgamations of companies. Even so, the incentive to grow as almost non-existent and in fact some companies preferred to “demerge” by splitting one company into two or more so as to escape from the harsh provisions of the MRTP Act. The fast pace of liberalisation since July 1991 and the time bound programme of structural reforms under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank have shaken the Indian industry from a slumber by exposing it to internal as well as international competition. Not surprisingly, the pressure is building up on every enterprise to modernise and expand to cut costs. Gone are the days of the licence and permit raj, high import duties and the prosperity guaranteed by a “seller’s market”. With the rising threat of competition and the “seller’s market” giving way to “buyer’s market” in a large number of industries, the compulsion to look for economics of scale in production and cutting down the selling cost is increasing. Simultaneously, the virtual scrapping of the MRTP provisions and relaxation in FERA have removed the disincentives to grow. Hence mergers, amalgamations and takeovers have assumed greater importance. Mergers and acquisitions have now come to represent a short cut for companies to achieve an accelerated growth. This is the trend world over and India cannot remain an exception as it moves towards globalisation. What was the motive of some companies behind resorting to demerger ? A to enhance their accountability B to bring about technical changes C to face the competition to market D to elude the harsh legal provisions
32)
Read the passage and answer the questions. The surge witnessed in mergers, amalgamations and takeover of companies during the past few years is indicative of the shape of things to come. While these concepts are not new and were recognised even in the Companies Act of 1913, the compulsions have undergone a dramatic change. In the past, mergers and acquisitions were used largely as an instrument for revival of sick units or for obtaining tax benefits. It was not uncommon for a business house to merge a sick company with a profit-making one and claim tax benefits. The objective was not necessarily to achieve faster growth. The liberalisation process witnessed during the late seventies and the eighties and particularly the relaxation of some of the restrictive provisions of MRTP Act and FERA, brought about a qualitative change in the mergers and amalgamations of companies. Even so, the incentive to grow as almost non-existent and in fact some companies preferred to “demerge” by splitting one company into two or more so as to escape from the harsh provisions of the MRTP Act. The fast pace of liberalisation since July 1991 and the time bound programme of structural reforms under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank have shaken the Indian industry from a slumber by exposing it to internal as well as international competition. Not surprisingly, the pressure is building up on every enterprise to modernise and expand to cut costs. Gone are the days of the licence and permit raj, high import duties and the prosperity guaranteed by a “seller’s market”. With the rising threat of competition and the “seller’s market” giving way to “buyer’s market” in a large number of industries, the compulsion to look for economics of scale in production and cutting down the selling cost is increasing. Simultaneously, the virtual scrapping of the MRTP provisions and relaxation in FERA have removed the disincentives to grow. Hence mergers, amalgamations and takeovers have assumed greater importance. Mergers and acquisitions have now come to represent a short cut for companies to achieve an accelerated growth. This is the trend world over and India cannot remain an exception as it moves towards globalisation. What is the meaning of the phrase, “sellers market” giving way to “buyer market” ? A Confrontation between sellers and buyers in a market over price B Market financially in favour of consumers C More demand than supply in a market D Demand and supply proportionate in a market
33)
Read the passage and answer the questions. The surge witnessed in mergers, amalgamations and takeover of companies during the past few years is indicative of the shape of things to come. While these concepts are not new and were recognised even in the Companies Act of 1913, the compulsions have undergone a dramatic change. In the past, mergers and acquisitions were used largely as an instrument for revival of sick units or for obtaining tax benefits. It was not uncommon for a business house to merge a sick company with a profit-making one and claim tax benefits. The objective was not necessarily to achieve faster growth. The liberalisation process witnessed during the late seventies and the eighties and particularly the relaxation of some of the restrictive provisions of MRTP Act and FERA, brought about a qualitative change in the mergers and amalgamations of companies. Even so, the incentive to grow as almost non-existent and in fact some companies preferred to “demerge” by splitting one company into two or more so as to escape from the harsh provisions of the MRTP Act. The fast pace of liberalisation since July 1991 and the time bound programme of structural reforms under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank have shaken the Indian industry from a slumber by exposing it to internal as well as international competition. Not surprisingly, the pressure is building up on every enterprise to modernise and expand to cut costs. Gone are the days of the licence and permit raj, high import duties and the prosperity guaranteed by a “seller’s market”. With the rising threat of competition and the “seller’s market” giving way to “buyer’s market” in a large number of industries, the compulsion to look for economics of scale in production and cutting down the selling cost is increasing. Simultaneously, the virtual scrapping of the MRTP provisions and relaxation in FERA have removed the disincentives to grow. Hence mergers, amalgamations and takeovers have assumed greater importance. Mergers and acquisitions have now come to represent a short cut for companies to achieve an accelerated growth. This is the trend world over and India cannot remain an exception as it moves towards globalisation. For which of the following was the amalgamations largely used in the past ? A To achieve accelerated growth B Serving on taxes payable to the government C Overcoming the provisions of revival of sick units D Forcing the government to adopt liberalisation process
34)
Read the passage and answer the questions. The surge witnessed in mergers, amalgamations and takeover of companies during the past few years is indicative of the shape of things to come. While these concepts are not new and were recognised even in the Companies Act of 1913, the compulsions have undergone a dramatic change. In the past, mergers and acquisitions were used largely as an instrument for revival of sick units or for obtaining tax benefits. It was not uncommon for a business house to merge a sick company with a profit-making one and claim tax benefits. The objective was not necessarily to achieve faster growth. The liberalisation process witnessed during the late seventies and the eighties and particularly the relaxation of some of the restrictive provisions of MRTP Act and FERA, brought about a qualitative change in the mergers and amalgamations of companies. Even so, the incentive to grow as almost non-existent and in fact some companies preferred to “demerge” by splitting one company into two or more so as to escape from the harsh provisions of the MRTP Act. The fast pace of liberalisation since July 1991 and the time bound programme of structural reforms under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank have shaken the Indian industry from a slumber by exposing it to internal as well as international competition. Not surprisingly, the pressure is building up on every enterprise to modernise and expand to cut costs. Gone are the days of the licence and permit raj, high import duties and the prosperity guaranteed by a “seller’s market”. With the rising threat of competition and the “seller’s market” giving way to “buyer’s market” in a large number of industries, the compulsion to look for economics of scale in production and cutting down the selling cost is increasing. Simultaneously, the virtual scrapping of the MRTP provisions and relaxation in FERA have removed the disincentives to grow. Hence mergers, amalgamations and takeovers have assumed greater importance. Mergers and acquisitions have now come to represent a short cut for companies to achieve an accelerated growth. This is the trend world over and India cannot remain an exception as it moves towards globalisation. Which of the following is true about the government’s stand on import duties ? A Import duty is now raised in order to earn revenue B Import duty is now lowered to encourage healthy competition C Import duty is lowered in order to encourage imports D Import duty is raised in order to discourage buying of foreign goods
35)
Read the passage and answer the questions. The surge witnessed in mergers, amalgamations and takeover of companies during the past few years is indicative of the shape of things to come. While these concepts are not new and were recognised even in the Companies Act of 1913, the compulsions have undergone a dramatic change. In the past, mergers and acquisitions were used largely as an instrument for revival of sick units or for obtaining tax benefits. It was not uncommon for a business house to merge a sick company with a profit-making one and claim tax benefits. The objective was not necessarily to achieve faster growth. The liberalisation process witnessed during the late seventies and the eighties and particularly the relaxation of some of the restrictive provisions of MRTP Act and FERA, brought about a qualitative change in the mergers and amalgamations of companies. Even so, the incentive to grow as almost non-existent and in fact some companies preferred to “demerge” by splitting one company into two or more so as to escape from the harsh provisions of the MRTP Act. The fast pace of liberalisation since July 1991 and the time bound programme of structural reforms under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank have shaken the Indian industry from a slumber by exposing it to internal as well as international competition. Not surprisingly, the pressure is building up on every enterprise to modernise and expand to cut costs. Gone are the days of the licence and permit raj, high import duties and the prosperity guaranteed by a “seller’s market”. With the rising threat of competition and the “seller’s market” giving way to “buyer’s market” in a large number of industries, the compulsion to look for economics of scale in production and cutting down the selling cost is increasing. Simultaneously, the virtual scrapping of the MRTP provisions and relaxation in FERA have removed the disincentives to grow. Hence mergers, amalgamations and takeovers have assumed greater importance. Mergers and acquisitions have now come to represent a short cut for companies to achieve an accelerated growth. This is the trend world over and India cannot remain an exception as it moves towards globalisation. The term “demerge” as used in the passage means : A formulation of two or more companies out of an existing one B re-union of companies which had split up out of one company C separation of two or more companies which had merged into one D renaming a company to claim tax benefits
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)
56)
57)
58)
59)
60)