Loading....
Coupon Accepted Successfully!

GS-II

Open Flashcards

Mock Practice Test-2

Question
70 out of 80
 

If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them?

One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change.

One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth.

So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman.


According to the passage, which of the following is not true?

A Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them.
B The same language can be used to understand what is going on between two nations, as in transaction analysis of what is going on between two persons.
C The transactions between the nations can be complementary only when they are based on equality.
D The transactions between nations should be adult.

Ans. C

Mock Practice Test-2 Flashcard List

80 flashcards
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers should be based only on the passage and you are not supposed to use your general knowledge/information in order to answer the items that follow the passage. Mohammed Akber Ali and Shrikanth Sriram, the London duo known as Badmarsh & Shri, don’t do scenes. They figured that out soon after the release of their first CD, Dancing Drums, in 1998. The duo was waiting to play at a London night spot packed with would-be hipsters desperate to get a hit of a new music genre-dubbed “Asian underground” but often consisting of little more than DJs sampling Indian folk music over drum-’n’-bass beats - that was then the rage in U.K. clubs. “There was a band on before us,” Sriram remembers. “And a couple of Asian guys came on with sitars. They didn’t even know how to hold them. They twanged one note, and the crowd goes, ‘Yeah, this is Asian underground.” After two notes, they put down the sitars and out came the rock guitars. To Sriram, a 32-years-old Bombay native who grew up surrounded by classical Indian music, it was too much to bear. “I thought, this doesn’t make any sense,” he says. “I’m not a part of this movement. The further we stay away from it the better.” They made the right choice. Since distancing themselves from the manufactured sound and styles of London’s Asian club scene, the duo has created its own, highly original kind of music. It’s a sonic masala of traditional tablas, sitars, flutes and strings stirred together with just about every spiece in the Western pop pantry, including drum ‘n’ bass, garage, funk and reggae. All the elements are on display on Signs (Outcaste), their thrilling second CD. “This music works as well in Norway as it does in London or New York,” Sriram says, “People like to get their heads blown apart.” Says Ali: “We’re not making music in a particular genre for a particular group.” In that sense, Badmarsh & Shri belongs to a generation of young British-Asian acts, from Nitin Sawhney to Cornershop, who have emerged from the ethnic underground to make music that bends—and transcends—traditional pop categories. South Asian culture suffuses almost every facet of modern British life: Bollywood movies outdraw West End musicals, and curry is the national cuisine. Now, with the novelty of the “Asian underground” fading, Asian musicians are demanding recognition as mainstream British artists with global appeal. Talvin Singh, the critically acclaimed London-based DJ and tabla virtuoso, says British-Asian pop “is the music of today. Whether its’ underground or overground, it’s creating a new spirit and science of making music.” Badmarsh & Shri are an unlikely team: the Yemeni-Indian Ali, 34, grew up in East London listening to black dance music before becoming a DJ; Sriram, who moved to London from India in 1997, plays bass and has tastes that range from Rush to Herbie Hancock. After meeting in 1998, they decided to record together-Ali spinning and mixing, Sriram laying down bass lines and melodies-and within a month they had finished Dancing Drums. “Shri became my human sampler,” Ali says “Instead of sampling from vinyl, I sampled from him.” Signs closes with Badmarsh & Shri’s sparest song to date: Appa, which features Sriram’s father, T.S. Sriram, playing a delicated sitar raga, backed by the Strings of Bombay. Sriram included the song on the album not only as a homage to his father but also as a retort to those pretenders-the guys who couldn’t hold their sitars properly-who once populated the so-called Asian underground. “I thought I’d show people what real sitar can sound like,” he says. “Even my father says he never knew he could sound that good.” Why did Sriram find the Asian underground scenes too much to bear’?A Sriram’s music was Western, not AsianB Sriram respected Indian classical musicC Sriram found the Asian underground to be hardly Asian as the performers had no understanding of Indian classical musicD Having been raised in Bombay Sriram wanted to avoid Indian classical music entirely in London
10)
Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers should be based only on the passage and you are not supposed to use your general knowledge/information in order to answer the items that follow the passage. Mohammed Akber Ali and Shrikanth Sriram, the London duo known as Badmarsh & Shri, don’t do scenes. They figured that out soon after the release of their first CD, Dancing Drums, in 1998. The duo was waiting to play at a London night spot packed with would-be hipsters desperate to get a hit of a new music genre-dubbed “Asian underground” but often consisting of little more than DJs sampling Indian folk music over drum-’n’-bass beats - that was then the rage in U.K. clubs. “There was a band on before us,” Sriram remembers. “And a couple of Asian guys came on with sitars. They didn’t even know how to hold them. They twanged one note, and the crowd goes, ‘Yeah, this is Asian underground.” After two notes, they put down the sitars and out came the rock guitars. To Sriram, a 32-years-old Bombay native who grew up surrounded by classical Indian music, it was too much to bear. “I thought, this doesn’t make any sense,” he says. “I’m not a part of this movement. The further we stay away from it the better.” They made the right choice. Since distancing themselves from the manufactured sound and styles of London’s Asian club scene, the duo has created its own, highly original kind of music. It’s a sonic masala of traditional tablas, sitars, flutes and strings stirred together with just about every spiece in the Western pop pantry, including drum ‘n’ bass, garage, funk and reggae. All the elements are on display on Signs (Outcaste), their thrilling second CD. “This music works as well in Norway as it does in London or New York,” Sriram says, “People like to get their heads blown apart.” Says Ali: “We’re not making music in a particular genre for a particular group.” In that sense, Badmarsh & Shri belongs to a generation of young British-Asian acts, from Nitin Sawhney to Cornershop, who have emerged from the ethnic underground to make music that bends—and transcends—traditional pop categories. South Asian culture suffuses almost every facet of modern British life: Bollywood movies outdraw West End musicals, and curry is the national cuisine. Now, with the novelty of the “Asian underground” fading, Asian musicians are demanding recognition as mainstream British artists with global appeal. Talvin Singh, the critically acclaimed London-based DJ and tabla virtuoso, says British-Asian pop “is the music of today. Whether its’ underground or overground, it’s creating a new spirit and science of making music.” Badmarsh & Shri are an unlikely team: the Yemeni-Indian Ali, 34, grew up in East London listening to black dance music before becoming a DJ; Sriram, who moved to London from India in 1997, plays bass and has tastes that range from Rush to Herbie Hancock. After meeting in 1998, they decided to record together-Ali spinning and mixing, Sriram laying down bass lines and melodies-and within a month they had finished Dancing Drums. “Shri became my human sampler,” Ali says “Instead of sampling from vinyl, I sampled from him.” Signs closes with Badmarsh & Shri’s sparest song to date: Appa, which features Sriram’s father, T.S. Sriram, playing a delicated sitar raga, backed by the Strings of Bombay. Sriram included the song on the album not only as a homage to his father but also as a retort to those pretenders-the guys who couldn’t hold their sitars properly-who once populated the so-called Asian underground. “I thought I’d show people what real sitar can sound like,” he says. “Even my father says he never knew he could sound that good.” Which of the following factor contributed to the popularity of the Badmarsh & Shri?A Bollywood outdraws Western musicals in the UKB The modern British are tremendously influenced by the South Asian culturesC the duo’s decision to steer clear of scenes helped them find a niche for themselvesD the music of the duo draw on South Asian traditions and blends them to give it a universal appeal
11)
Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers should be based only on the passage and you are not supposed to use your general knowledge/information in order to answer the items that follow the passage. Mohammed Akber Ali and Shrikanth Sriram, the London duo known as Badmarsh & Shri, don’t do scenes. They figured that out soon after the release of their first CD, Dancing Drums, in 1998. The duo was waiting to play at a London night spot packed with would-be hipsters desperate to get a hit of a new music genre-dubbed “Asian underground” but often consisting of little more than DJs sampling Indian folk music over drum-’n’-bass beats - that was then the rage in U.K. clubs. “There was a band on before us,” Sriram remembers. “And a couple of Asian guys came on with sitars. They didn’t even know how to hold them. They twanged one note, and the crowd goes, ‘Yeah, this is Asian underground.” After two notes, they put down the sitars and out came the rock guitars. To Sriram, a 32-years-old Bombay native who grew up surrounded by classical Indian music, it was too much to bear. “I thought, this doesn’t make any sense,” he says. “I’m not a part of this movement. The further we stay away from it the better.” They made the right choice. Since distancing themselves from the manufactured sound and styles of London’s Asian club scene, the duo has created its own, highly original kind of music. It’s a sonic masala of traditional tablas, sitars, flutes and strings stirred together with just about every spiece in the Western pop pantry, including drum ‘n’ bass, garage, funk and reggae. All the elements are on display on Signs (Outcaste), their thrilling second CD. “This music works as well in Norway as it does in London or New York,” Sriram says, “People like to get their heads blown apart.” Says Ali: “We’re not making music in a particular genre for a particular group.” In that sense, Badmarsh & Shri belongs to a generation of young British-Asian acts, from Nitin Sawhney to Cornershop, who have emerged from the ethnic underground to make music that bends—and transcends—traditional pop categories. South Asian culture suffuses almost every facet of modern British life: Bollywood movies outdraw West End musicals, and curry is the national cuisine. Now, with the novelty of the “Asian underground” fading, Asian musicians are demanding recognition as mainstream British artists with global appeal. Talvin Singh, the critically acclaimed London-based DJ and tabla virtuoso, says British-Asian pop “is the music of today. Whether its’ underground or overground, it’s creating a new spirit and science of making music.” Badmarsh & Shri are an unlikely team: the Yemeni-Indian Ali, 34, grew up in East London listening to black dance music before becoming a DJ; Sriram, who moved to London from India in 1997, plays bass and has tastes that range from Rush to Herbie Hancock. After meeting in 1998, they decided to record together-Ali spinning and mixing, Sriram laying down bass lines and melodies-and within a month they had finished Dancing Drums. “Shri became my human sampler,” Ali says “Instead of sampling from vinyl, I sampled from him.” Signs closes with Badmarsh & Shri’s sparest song to date: Appa, which features Sriram’s father, T.S. Sriram, playing a delicated sitar raga, backed by the Strings of Bombay. Sriram included the song on the album not only as a homage to his father but also as a retort to those pretenders-the guys who couldn’t hold their sitars properly-who once populated the so-called Asian underground. “I thought I’d show people what real sitar can sound like,” he says. “Even my father says he never knew he could sound that good.” What makes Badmarsh & Shri work well as a team?A The duo comes from different backgrounds with different taste in musicB They are both British-Asian, with Indian roots.C They complement each other well, critiquing and supporting each otherD all of the above
12)
Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers should be based only on the passage and you are not supposed to use your general knowledge/information in order to answer the items that follow the passage. Mohammed Akber Ali and Shrikanth Sriram, the London duo known as Badmarsh & Shri, don’t do scenes. They figured that out soon after the release of their first CD, Dancing Drums, in 1998. The duo was waiting to play at a London night spot packed with would-be hipsters desperate to get a hit of a new music genre-dubbed “Asian underground” but often consisting of little more than DJs sampling Indian folk music over drum-’n’-bass beats - that was then the rage in U.K. clubs. “There was a band on before us,” Sriram remembers. “And a couple of Asian guys came on with sitars. They didn’t even know how to hold them. They twanged one note, and the crowd goes, ‘Yeah, this is Asian underground.” After two notes, they put down the sitars and out came the rock guitars. To Sriram, a 32-years-old Bombay native who grew up surrounded by classical Indian music, it was too much to bear. “I thought, this doesn’t make any sense,” he says. “I’m not a part of this movement. The further we stay away from it the better.” They made the right choice. Since distancing themselves from the manufactured sound and styles of London’s Asian club scene, the duo has created its own, highly original kind of music. It’s a sonic masala of traditional tablas, sitars, flutes and strings stirred together with just about every spiece in the Western pop pantry, including drum ‘n’ bass, garage, funk and reggae. All the elements are on display on Signs (Outcaste), their thrilling second CD. “This music works as well in Norway as it does in London or New York,” Sriram says, “People like to get their heads blown apart.” Says Ali: “We’re not making music in a particular genre for a particular group.” In that sense, Badmarsh & Shri belongs to a generation of young British-Asian acts, from Nitin Sawhney to Cornershop, who have emerged from the ethnic underground to make music that bends—and transcends—traditional pop categories. South Asian culture suffuses almost every facet of modern British life: Bollywood movies outdraw West End musicals, and curry is the national cuisine. Now, with the novelty of the “Asian underground” fading, Asian musicians are demanding recognition as mainstream British artists with global appeal. Talvin Singh, the critically acclaimed London-based DJ and tabla virtuoso, says British-Asian pop “is the music of today. Whether its’ underground or overground, it’s creating a new spirit and science of making music.” Badmarsh & Shri are an unlikely team: the Yemeni-Indian Ali, 34, grew up in East London listening to black dance music before becoming a DJ; Sriram, who moved to London from India in 1997, plays bass and has tastes that range from Rush to Herbie Hancock. After meeting in 1998, they decided to record together-Ali spinning and mixing, Sriram laying down bass lines and melodies-and within a month they had finished Dancing Drums. “Shri became my human sampler,” Ali says “Instead of sampling from vinyl, I sampled from him.” Signs closes with Badmarsh & Shri’s sparest song to date: Appa, which features Sriram’s father, T.S. Sriram, playing a delicated sitar raga, backed by the Strings of Bombay. Sriram included the song on the album not only as a homage to his father but also as a retort to those pretenders-the guys who couldn’t hold their sitars properly-who once populated the so-called Asian underground. “I thought I’d show people what real sitar can sound like,” he says. “Even my father says he never knew he could sound that good.” According to the passage which of the following is true?A the duo has created a totally original kind of musicB the duo has totally abandoned manufactured soundsC the new music is totally devoid of any traces of Indian folk musicD the current trend in music is a mixture of two music
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
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)
61)
62)
63)
64)
65)
66)
John Maynard Keynes, the trendiest dead economist of this apocalyptic moment, was the godfather of government stimulus. Keynes had the radical idea that throwing money at recessions through aggressive deficit spending would resuscitate flatinged economies and he wasn’t too particular about where the money was thrown. In the depths of the Depression, he suggested that the Treasury could “fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines” then sit back and watch a money-mining boom create jobs and prosperity. “It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like,” he wrote, but above would be better than nothing. As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to throw money at the current down urn a stimulus package starting at about $350 billion chunk of the financial bailout-we all really do seem to be Keynesians now. Just about every expect agrees that pumping $1 trillion into a moribund economy will rev up the ethereal goods-and services engine that Keynes called “aggregate demand” and stimulate at least some short-term activity, even if it is all wasted on money pits. But Keynes was also right that there would be more sensible ways to spend it. A trillion dollars’ worth of bad ideas sprawl-inducing highways and bridges to nowhere, ethanol plants and pipelines that accelerate global warming, tax breaks for overleveraged Mac mansion builders and burdensome new long-term federal entitlements-would be worse than mere waste. It would be smarter to buy every American an iPod, a set of Ginsu knives and 600 Subway foot-longs. It would be smarter still to throw all that money at things we need to do anyway which is the goal of Obama’s upcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. It will include a mix of tax cuts, aid to beleaguered state and local governments, and spending to address needed ranging from food stamps to computerized health records to bridge repairs to broadband networks to energy-efficiency retrofits, all designed to save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Obama has said speed is his top priority because the faster Washington injects cash into the financial bloodstream, the better it stands to help avert a multiyear slump with double-digit unemployment and deflation. But he also wants to use the stimulus to advance his long-term priorities: reducing energy use and carbon emissions, cutting middle-class taxes, upgrading neglected infrastructure, reining in health-care costs and eventually reducing the budget deficits that exploded under Gerorge W. Bush. Obama’s goal is to exploit this crisis in the best sense of the word, to start pursuing his vision of a greener, fairer, more competitive, more sustainable economy. Unfortunately, while 21st century Washington has demonstrated an impressive ability to spend money quickly, it has yet to prove that it can spend money wisely. And the chum of a 1 with 12 zeros is already creating a feeding frenzy for the ages. Lobbyists for shoe companies, zoos, catfish farmers. Mall owners, airlines, public broadcasters, car dealers and everyone else who can afford their retainers are lining up for a piece of the stimulus. States that embarked on raucous spending and tax-cutting sprees when they were flush are begging for bailouts now that they’re broke. And politicians are dusting off their unfunded mobster museums, waterslides and other pet projects for regrinding as shovel ready in frastructure investments. As Obama’s aides scramble to assemble something effectives and transformative as well as politically achievable, they acknowledge the tension between his desires for speed and reform. John M. Keynes was advocate of which of the following suggestions?A Spending money recklessly during recessions is suicidalB Exorbitant spending during recessions is likely to boost economyC Aggressive deficit spending is likely to be fatal for economic meltdown.D Government stimulus to economy may not help because of red-tapism
67)
John Maynard Keynes, the trendiest dead economist of this apocalyptic moment, was the godfather of government stimulus. Keynes had the radical idea that throwing money at recessions through aggressive deficit spending would resuscitate flatinged economies and he wasn’t too particular about where the money was thrown. In the depths of the Depression, he suggested that the Treasury could “fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines” then sit back and watch a money-mining boom create jobs and prosperity. “It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like,” he wrote, but above would be better than nothing. As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to throw money at the current down urn a stimulus package starting at about $350 billion chunk of the financial bailout-we all really do seem to be Keynesians now. Just about every expect agrees that pumping $1 trillion into a moribund economy will rev up the ethereal goods-and services engine that Keynes called “aggregate demand” and stimulate at least some short-term activity, even if it is all wasted on money pits. But Keynes was also right that there would be more sensible ways to spend it. A trillion dollars’ worth of bad ideas sprawl-inducing highways and bridges to nowhere, ethanol plants and pipelines that accelerate global warming, tax breaks for overleveraged Mac mansion builders and burdensome new long-term federal entitlements-would be worse than mere waste. It would be smarter to buy every American an iPod, a set of Ginsu knives and 600 Subway foot-longs. It would be smarter still to throw all that money at things we need to do anyway which is the goal of Obama’s upcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. It will include a mix of tax cuts, aid to beleaguered state and local governments, and spending to address needed ranging from food stamps to computerized health records to bridge repairs to broadband networks to energy-efficiency retrofits, all designed to save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Obama has said speed is his top priority because the faster Washington injects cash into the financial bloodstream, the better it stands to help avert a multiyear slump with double-digit unemployment and deflation. But he also wants to use the stimulus to advance his long-term priorities: reducing energy use and carbon emissions, cutting middle-class taxes, upgrading neglected infrastructure, reining in health-care costs and eventually reducing the budget deficits that exploded under Gerorge W. Bush. Obama’s goal is to exploit this crisis in the best sense of the word, to start pursuing his vision of a greener, fairer, more competitive, more sustainable economy. Unfortunately, while 21st century Washington has demonstrated an impressive ability to spend money quickly, it has yet to prove that it can spend money wisely. And the chum of a 1 with 12 zeros is already creating a feeding frenzy for the ages. Lobbyists for shoe companies, zoos, catfish farmers. Mall owners, airlines, public broadcasters, car dealers and everyone else who can afford their retainers are lining up for a piece of the stimulus. States that embarked on raucous spending and tax-cutting sprees when they were flush are begging for bailouts now that they’re broke. And politicians are dusting off their unfunded mobster museums, waterslides and other pet projects for regrinding as shovel ready in frastructure investments. As Obama’s aides scramble to assemble something effectives and transformative as well as politically achievable, they acknowledge the tension between his desires for speed and reform. The author of the passage calls Barack Obama and his team as “Keynesians” becauseA Barack Obama has been reluctant to follow Keynes’ philosophyB His team is advising Barack to refrain from Keynes’ philosophyC Barack Obama and his team have decided to fill old bottles with banknotesD None of these
68)
John Maynard Keynes, the trendiest dead economist of this apocalyptic moment, was the godfather of government stimulus. Keynes had the radical idea that throwing money at recessions through aggressive deficit spending would resuscitate flatinged economies and he wasn’t too particular about where the money was thrown. In the depths of the Depression, he suggested that the Treasury could “fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines” then sit back and watch a money-mining boom create jobs and prosperity. “It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like,” he wrote, but above would be better than nothing. As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to throw money at the current down urn a stimulus package starting at about $350 billion chunk of the financial bailout-we all really do seem to be Keynesians now. Just about every expect agrees that pumping $1 trillion into a moribund economy will rev up the ethereal goods-and services engine that Keynes called “aggregate demand” and stimulate at least some short-term activity, even if it is all wasted on money pits. But Keynes was also right that there would be more sensible ways to spend it. A trillion dollars’ worth of bad ideas sprawl-inducing highways and bridges to nowhere, ethanol plants and pipelines that accelerate global warming, tax breaks for overleveraged Mac mansion builders and burdensome new long-term federal entitlements-would be worse than mere waste. It would be smarter to buy every American an iPod, a set of Ginsu knives and 600 Subway foot-longs. It would be smarter still to throw all that money at things we need to do anyway which is the goal of Obama’s upcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. It will include a mix of tax cuts, aid to beleaguered state and local governments, and spending to address needed ranging from food stamps to computerized health records to bridge repairs to broadband networks to energy-efficiency retrofits, all designed to save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Obama has said speed is his top priority because the faster Washington injects cash into the financial bloodstream, the better it stands to help avert a multiyear slump with double-digit unemployment and deflation. But he also wants to use the stimulus to advance his long-term priorities: reducing energy use and carbon emissions, cutting middle-class taxes, upgrading neglected infrastructure, reining in health-care costs and eventually reducing the budget deficits that exploded under Gerorge W. Bush. Obama’s goal is to exploit this crisis in the best sense of the word, to start pursuing his vision of a greener, fairer, more competitive, more sustainable economy. Unfortunately, while 21st century Washington has demonstrated an impressive ability to spend money quickly, it has yet to prove that it can spend money wisely. And the chum of a 1 with 12 zeros is already creating a feeding frenzy for the ages. Lobbyists for shoe companies, zoos, catfish farmers. Mall owners, airlines, public broadcasters, car dealers and everyone else who can afford their retainers are lining up for a piece of the stimulus. States that embarked on raucous spending and tax-cutting sprees when they were flush are begging for bailouts now that they’re broke. And politicians are dusting off their unfunded mobster museums, waterslides and other pet projects for regrinding as shovel ready in frastructure investments. As Obama’s aides scramble to assemble something effectives and transformative as well as politically achievable, they acknowledge the tension between his desires for speed and reform. Obama’s upcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan focuses on which of the following? (A) Recovery of all debts from the debtors in a phased manner. (B) Pumping money very liberally in projects that are mandatory. (C) Investing money recklessly in any project regardless of its utility.A (A) onlyB (B) onlyC (C) onlyD (B) and (C) only
69)
John Maynard Keynes, the trendiest dead economist of this apocalyptic moment, was the godfather of government stimulus. Keynes had the radical idea that throwing money at recessions through aggressive deficit spending would resuscitate flatinged economies and he wasn’t too particular about where the money was thrown. In the depths of the Depression, he suggested that the Treasury could “fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines” then sit back and watch a money-mining boom create jobs and prosperity. “It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like,” he wrote, but above would be better than nothing. As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to throw money at the current down urn a stimulus package starting at about $350 billion chunk of the financial bailout-we all really do seem to be Keynesians now. Just about every expect agrees that pumping $1 trillion into a moribund economy will rev up the ethereal goods-and services engine that Keynes called “aggregate demand” and stimulate at least some short-term activity, even if it is all wasted on money pits. But Keynes was also right that there would be more sensible ways to spend it. A trillion dollars’ worth of bad ideas sprawl-inducing highways and bridges to nowhere, ethanol plants and pipelines that accelerate global warming, tax breaks for overleveraged Mac mansion builders and burdensome new long-term federal entitlements-would be worse than mere waste. It would be smarter to buy every American an iPod, a set of Ginsu knives and 600 Subway foot-longs. It would be smarter still to throw all that money at things we need to do anyway which is the goal of Obama’s upcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. It will include a mix of tax cuts, aid to beleaguered state and local governments, and spending to address needed ranging from food stamps to computerized health records to bridge repairs to broadband networks to energy-efficiency retrofits, all designed to save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Obama has said speed is his top priority because the faster Washington injects cash into the financial bloodstream, the better it stands to help avert a multiyear slump with double-digit unemployment and deflation. But he also wants to use the stimulus to advance his long-term priorities: reducing energy use and carbon emissions, cutting middle-class taxes, upgrading neglected infrastructure, reining in health-care costs and eventually reducing the budget deficits that exploded under Gerorge W. Bush. Obama’s goal is to exploit this crisis in the best sense of the word, to start pursuing his vision of a greener, fairer, more competitive, more sustainable economy. Unfortunately, while 21st century Washington has demonstrated an impressive ability to spend money quickly, it has yet to prove that it can spend money wisely. And the chum of a 1 with 12 zeros is already creating a feeding frenzy for the ages. Lobbyists for shoe companies, zoos, catfish farmers. Mall owners, airlines, public broadcasters, car dealers and everyone else who can afford their retainers are lining up for a piece of the stimulus. States that embarked on raucous spending and tax-cutting sprees when they were flush are begging for bailouts now that they’re broke. And politicians are dusting off their unfunded mobster museums, waterslides and other pet projects for regrinding as shovel ready in frastructure investments. As Obama’s aides scramble to assemble something effectives and transformative as well as politically achievable, they acknowledge the tension between his desires for speed and reform. Which of the following is/are corrective measure(s) as part of the long term priorities of Obama that was an outcome of his predecessor’s regime? (A) Countering recession through immediate rescue operations. (B) Reducing the budget deficit. (C) Creating a more sustainable economy.A (A) and (B) onlyB (B) and (C) onlyC (A) and (C) onlyD (B) only
70)
If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them? One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change. One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth. So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman. According to the passage, which of the following is not true?A Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them.B The same language can be used to understand what is going on between two nations, as in transaction analysis of what is going on between two persons.C The transactions between the nations can be complementary only when they are based on equality.D The transactions between nations should be adult.
71)
If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them? One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change. One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth. So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman. The author is least likely to agree with the statement that:A Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary transactions workable in today’s world.B transactions between countries can be feasible on the basis of self-emergence.C complementary transactions are necessary in view of the self-emergence and self-determination of even the smallest nations.D complementary transactions between nations can be feasible on the basis of equal status.
72)
If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them? One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change. One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth. So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman. The author is most likely to agree with the statement that:A what once was a workable parent-child relationship between countries is no more complementary.B no nation dare oppose the United Nations.C the smaller countries no more want to be called smaller.D None of the above.
73)
If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them? One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change. One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth. So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman. All of the following are reasons for: “And therein lies the possibility of change” except:A one of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions in the UN.B when we are told they will bury us, it hooks our child, but we do not have to respond to our child.C when the premier of a nation pounds his shoe on the table, hopes are shattered.D none of the above.
74)
If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them? One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change. One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth. So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman. The author’s attitude towards Nikita Khrushchev statement is:A supportive and explanatoryB derisive and mockingC sychophomatic and seriousD None of these
75)
76)
77)
78)
79)
80)