Reading Comprehension Questions

 In the 16th century, an age of great marine and terrestrial exploration, Ferdinand Magellan led the first expedition to sail around the world. As a young Portuguese noble, he served the king of Portugal, but he became involved in the quagmire of political intrigue at court and lost the king's favor. After he was dismissed from service by the king of Portugal, he offered to serve the future Emperor Charles V of Spain. A papal decree of 1493 had assigned all land in the New World west of 50 degrees W longitude to Spain and all the land east of that line to Portugal. Magellan offered to prove that the East Indies fell under Spanish authority. On September 20, 1519, Magellan set sail from Spain with five ships. More than a year later, one of these ships was exploring the topography of South America in search of a water route across the continent. This ship sank, but the remaining four ships searched along the southern peninsula of South America. Finally they found the passage they sought near 50 degrees S latitude. Magellan named this passage the Strait of All Saints, but today it is known as the Strait of Magellan. One ship deserted while in this passage and returned to Spain, so fewer sailors were privileged to gaze at that first panorama of the Pacific Ocean. Those who remained crossed the meridian now known as the International Date Line in the early spring of 1521 after 98 days on the Pacific Ocean. During those long days at sea, many of Magellan's men died of starvation and disease. Later, Magellan became involved in an insular conflict in the Philippines and was killed in a tribal battle. Only one ship and 17 sailors under the command of the Basque navigator Elcano survived to complete the westward journey to Spain and thus prove once and for all that the world is round, with no precipice at the edge.

 The Indian government's intention of introducing caste based quotas for the ? Other Backward Classes in centrally funded institutions of higher learning and the prime minister's suggestion to the private sector to ?voluntarily go in for reservation, has once again sparked off a debate on the merits and demerits of caste-based reservations. Unfortunately, the predictable divide between the votaries of ?social justice on one hand and those advocating ?merit on the other seems to have once again camouflaged the real issues. It is necessary to take a holistic and non-partisan view of the issues involved. The hue and cry about ?sacrificing merit is untenable simply because merit is after all a social construct and it cannot be determined objectively in a historically unjust and unequal context. The idea of competitive merit will be worthy of serious attention only in a broadly egalitarian context. But then, caste is not the only obstacle in the way of an egalitarian order. After all, economic conditions, educational opportunities and discrimination on the basis of gender also contribute to the denial of opportunity to express one's true merit and worth. It is interesting to note that in the ongoing debate, one side refuses to see the socially constructed nature of the notion of merit, while the other side refuses to recognise the multiplicity of the mechanisms of exclusion with equal vehemence. The idea of caste-based reservations is justified by the logic of social justice. This implies the conscious attempt to restructure a given social order in such a way that individuals belonging to the traditionally and structurally marginalised social groups get adequate opportunities to actualise their potential and realise their due share in the resources available. In any society, particularly in one as diverse and complex as the Indian society, this is going to be a gigantic exercise and must not be reduced to just one aspect of state policy. Seen in this light, caste-based reservation has to work in tandem with other policies ensuring the elimination of the structures of social marginalization and denial of access. It has to be seen as a means of achieving social justice and not an end in itself. By the same logic it must be assessed and audited from time to time like any other social policy and economic strategy.

 The Indian government's intention of introducing caste based quotas for the ? Other Backward Classes in centrally funded institutions of higher learning and the prime minister's suggestion to the private sector to ?voluntarily go in for reservation, has once again sparked off a debate on the merits and demerits of caste-based reservations. Unfortunately, the predictable divide between the votaries of ?social justice on one hand and those advocating ?merit on the other seems to have once again camouflaged the real issues. It is necessary to take a holistic and non-partisan view of the issues involved. The hue and cry about ?sacrificing merit is untenable simply because merit is after all a social construct and it cannot be determined objectively in a historically unjust and unequal context. The idea of competitive merit will be worthy of serious attention only in a broadly egalitarian context. But then, caste is not the only obstacle in the way of an egalitarian order. After all, economic conditions, educational opportunities and discrimination on the basis of gender also contribute to the denial of opportunity to express one's true merit and worth. It is interesting to note that in the ongoing debate, one side refuses to see the socially constructed nature of the notion of merit, while the other side refuses to recognise the multiplicity of the mechanisms of exclusion with equal vehemence. The idea of caste-based reservations is justified by the logic of social justice. This implies the conscious attempt to restructure a given social order in such a way that individuals belonging to the traditionally and structurally marginalised social groups get adequate opportunities to actualise their potential and realise their due share in the resources available. In any society, particularly in one as diverse and complex as the Indian society, this is going to be a gigantic exercise and must not be reduced to just one aspect of state policy. Seen in this light, caste-based reservation has to work in tandem with other policies ensuring the elimination of the structures of social marginalization and denial of access. It has to be seen as a means of achieving social justice and not an end in itself. By the same logic it must be assessed and audited from time to time like any other social policy and economic strategy.

 The Indian government's intention of introducing caste based quotas for the ? Other Backward Classes in centrally funded institutions of higher learning and the prime minister's suggestion to the private sector to ?voluntarily go in for reservation, has once again sparked off a debate on the merits and demerits of caste-based reservations. Unfortunately, the predictable divide between the votaries of ?social justice on one hand and those advocating ?merit on the other seems to have once again camouflaged the real issues. It is necessary to take a holistic and non-partisan view of the issues involved. The hue and cry about ?sacrificing merit is untenable simply because merit is after all a social construct and it cannot be determined objectively in a historically unjust and unequal context. The idea of competitive merit will be worthy of serious attention only in a broadly egalitarian context. But then, caste is not the only obstacle in the way of an egalitarian order. After all, economic conditions, educational opportunities and discrimination on the basis of gender also contribute to the denial of opportunity to express one's true merit and worth. It is interesting to note that in the ongoing debate, one side refuses to see the socially constructed nature of the notion of merit, while the other side refuses to recognise the multiplicity of the mechanisms of exclusion with equal vehemence. The idea of caste-based reservations is justified by the logic of social justice. This implies the conscious attempt to restructure a given social order in such a way that individuals belonging to the traditionally and structurally marginalised social groups get adequate opportunities to actualise their potential and realise their due share in the resources available. In any society, particularly in one as diverse and complex as the Indian society, this is going to be a gigantic exercise and must not be reduced to just one aspect of state policy. Seen in this light, caste-based reservation has to work in tandem with other policies ensuring the elimination of the structures of social marginalization and denial of access. It has to be seen as a means of achieving social justice and not an end in itself. By the same logic it must be assessed and audited from time to time like any other social policy and economic strategy.

 The economic transformation of India is one of the great business stories of our time. As stifling government regulations have been lifted, entrepreneurship has flourished, and the country has become a high-powered center for information technology and pharmaceuticals. Indian companies like Infosys and Wipro are powerful global players, while Western firms like G.E. and I.B.M. now have major research facilities in India employing thousands. India's seemingly endless flow of young, motivated engineers, scientists, and managers offering developed-world skills at developing-world wages is held to be putting American jobs at risk, and the country is frequently heralded as the next economic superpower. But India has run into a surprising hitch on its way to superpower status: its inexhaustible supply of workers is becoming exhausted. Although India has one of the youngest workforce on the planet, the head of Infosys said recently that there was an acute shortage of skilled manpower, and a study by Hewitt Associates projects that this year salaries for skilled workers will rise fourteen and a half per cent, a sure sign that demand for skilled labor is outstripping supply.How is this possible in a country that every year produces two and a half million college graduates and four hundred thousand engineers? Start with the fact that just ten per cent of Indians get any kind of post-secondary education, compared with some fifty per cent who do in the U.S. Moreover, of that ten per cent, the vast majority go to one of India's seventeen thousand colleges, many of which are closer to community colleges than to four-year institutions. India does have more than three hundred universities, but a recent survey by the London Times Higher Education Supplement put only two of them among the top hundred in the world. Many Indian graduates therefore enter the workforce with a low level of skills. A current study led by Vivek Wadhwa, of Duke University, has found that if you define 'engineer' by U.S. standards, India produces just a hundred and seventy thousand engineers a year, not four hundred thousand. Infosys says that, of 1.3 million applicants for jobs last year, it found only two per cent acceptable.There was a time when many economists believed that post-secondary education didn't have much impact on economic growth. The really important educational gains, they thought, came from giving rudimentary skills to large numbers of people (which India still needs to doat least thirty per cent of the population is illiterate). They believed that, in economic terms, society got a very low rate of return on its investment in higher education. But lately that assumption has been overturned, and the social rate of return on investment in university education in India has been calculated at an impressive nine or ten per cent. In other words, every dollar India puts into higher education creates value for the economy as a whole. Yet India spends roughly three and a half per cent of its G.D.P. on education, significantly below the percentage spent by the U.S., even though India's population is much younger, and spending on education should be proportionately higher.The irony of the current situation is that India was once considered to be over educated. In the seventies, as its economy languished, it seemed to be a country with too many engineers and Ph.D.s working as clerks in government offices. Once the Indian business climate loosened up, though, that meant companies could tap a backlog of hundreds of thousands of eager, skilled workers at their disposal. Unfortunately, the educational system did not adjust to the new realities. Between 1985 and 1997, the number of teachers in India actually fell, while the percentage of students enrolled in high school or college rose more slowly than it did in the rest of the world. Even as the need for skilled workers was increasing, India was devoting relatively fewer resources to producing them.Since the Second World War, the countries that have made successful leaps from developing to developed status have all poured money, public and private, into education. South Korea now spends a higher percentage of its national income on education than nearly any other country in the world. Taiwan had a system of universal primary education before its phase of hyper growth began. And, more recently, Ireland's economic boom was spurred, in part, by an opening up and expansion of primary and secondary schools and increased funding for universities. Education will be all the more important for India's well-being; the earlier generation of so-called Asian Tigers depended heavily on manufacturing, but India's focus on services and technology will require a more skilled and educated workforce.India has taken tentative steps to remedy its skills famine the current government has made noises about doubling spending on education, and a host of new colleges and universities have sprung up since the mid-nineties. But India's impressive economic performance has made the problem seem less urgent than it actually is, and allowed the government to defer difficult choices. (In a country where more than three hundred million people live on a dollar a day, producing college graduates can seem like a low priority.) Ultimately, the Indian government has to pull off a very tough trick, making serious changes at a time when things seem to be going very well. It needs, in other words, a clear sense of everything that can still go wrong. The paradox of the Indian economy today is that the more certain its glowing future seems to be, the less likely that future becomes.

 Give people power and discretion, and whether they are grand viziers or border guards, some will use their
position to enrich themselves. The problem can be big enough to hold back a country's development. For
most people in the world, though, the worry is not that corruption may slow down their country's GDP
growth. It is that their daily lives are pervaded by endless hassles, big and small. And for all the evidence that
some cultures suffer endemic corruption while others are relatively clean, attitudes towards corruption, and
even the language describing bribery, is remarkably similar around the world.
In a testament to most people's basic decency, bribe-takers and bribe-payers have developed an elaborate
theater of dissimulation. This is not just to avoid detection. Even in countries where corruption is so common
as to be unremarkable and on the prosecutor and even when the transaction happens far from snooping eyes bribe is almost always dressed up as some other kind of exchange.Though most of the world is plagued by corruption, even serial offenders try to conceal it.

One manifestation of this is linguistic. Surprisingly few people say: "You are going to have to pay me if you
want to get that done." Instead, they use a wide variety of euphemisms. One type is quasi-official
terminology. The term widely used at border crossings is "expediting fee". For a euphemism it is surprisingly
accurate: paying it will keep your bags, and perhaps your contraband, from being dumped onto a floor and
sifted through at a leisurely pace. (A related term, used in India, is "speed money": paying it can get essential
business permits issued considerably faster.)
The second type of euphemism dresses up a dodgy payment as a friendly favor done by the bribe-payer. There
is plenty of creative scopes. Nigerian policemen are known to ask for "a little something for the weekend".
Mexican traffic police will suggest that you buy them are fresco, a soft drink, as will Angolan and Mozambican
petty officials, who call it a gazebo in Portuguese.
Double meaning can help soothe the awkwardness of bribe-paying. Baksheesh, originally a Persian word now
found in many countries of the Middle East, can mean "tip", "alms" and "bribe". In Kenya a machine-gun wielding
guard suggested to a terrified Canadian aid worker: "Perhaps you would like to discuss this over
chai?" The young Canadian was relieved: the difficulty could be resolved with some chai, which means both "tea" and "bribe".
Along with the obscurantist language, bribe-taking culture around the world often involves the avoidance of
physically handing the money from one person to another. One obvious reason is to avoid detection, which
is why bribes are known as "envelopes" in countries from China to Greece. But avoidance of a direct handover
is common even where there is no chance of detection.There will always be some officials who will take money right from a bribe payer's hands, but most seem to prefer to find some way to hide the money from view.

Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly
differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes
just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the $50 to sneak
into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual
corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary. Thus there is no single cultural or social factor that inclines a society towards corruption, but economic factors play a big part.Most clearly, poverty and bribery go together.

 Give people power and discretion, and whether they are grand viziers or border guards, some will use their
position to enrich themselves. The problem can be big enough to hold back a country's development. For
most people in the world, though, the worry is not that corruption may slow down their country's GDP
growth. It is that their daily lives are pervaded by endless hassles, big and small. And for all the evidence that
some cultures suffer endemic corruption while others are relatively clean, attitudes towards corruption, and
even the language describing bribery, is remarkably similar around the world.
In a testament to most people's basic decency, bribe-takers and bribe-payers have developed an elaborate
theater of dissimulation. This is not just to avoid detection. Even in countries where corruption is so common
as to be unremarkable and on the prosecutor and even when the transaction happens far from snooping eyes bribe is almost always dressed up as some other kind of exchange.Though most of the world is plagued by corruption, even serial offenders try to conceal it.

One manifestation of this is linguistic. Surprisingly few people say: "You are going to have to pay me if you
want to get that done." Instead, they use a wide variety of euphemisms. One type is quasi-official
terminology. The term widely used at border crossings is "expediting fee". For a euphemism it is surprisingly
accurate: paying it will keep your bags, and perhaps your contraband, from being dumped onto a floor and
sifted through at a leisurely pace. (A related term, used in India, is "speed money": paying it can get essential
business permits issued considerably faster.)
The second type of euphemism dresses up a dodgy payment as a friendly favor done by the bribe-payer. There
is plenty of creative scopes. Nigerian policemen are known to ask for "a little something for the weekend".
Mexican traffic police will suggest that you buy them are fresco, a soft drink, as will Angolan and Mozambican
petty officials, who call it a gazebo in Portuguese.
Double meaning can help soothe the awkwardness of bribe-paying. Baksheesh, originally a Persian word now
found in many countries of the Middle East, can mean "tip", "alms" and "bribe". In Kenya a machine-gun wielding
guard suggested to a terrified Canadian aid worker: "Perhaps you would like to discuss this over
chai?" The young Canadian was relieved: the difficulty could be resolved with some chai, which means both "tea" and "bribe".
Along with the obscurantist language, bribe-taking culture around the world often involves the avoidance of
physically handing the money from one person to another. One obvious reason is to avoid detection, which
is why bribes are known as "envelopes" in countries from China to Greece. But avoidance of a direct handover
is common even where there is no chance of detection.There will always be some officials who will take money right from a bribe payer's hands, but most seem to prefer to find some way to hide the money from view.

Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly
differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes
just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the $50 to sneak
into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual
corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary. Thus there is no single cultural or social factor that inclines a society towards corruption, but economic factors play a big part.Most clearly, poverty and bribery go together.

 Give people power and discretion, and whether they are grand viziers or border guards, some will use their
position to enrich themselves. The problem can be big enough to hold back a country's development. For
most people in the world, though, the worry is not that corruption may slow down their country's GDP
growth. It is that their daily lives are pervaded by endless hassles, big and small. And for all the evidence that
some cultures suffer endemic corruption while others are relatively clean, attitudes towards corruption, and
even the language describing bribery, is remarkably similar around the world.
In a testament to most people's basic decency, bribe-takers and bribe-payers have developed an elaborate
theater of dissimulation. This is not just to avoid detection. Even in countries where corruption is so common
as to be unremarkable and on the prosecutor and even when the transaction happens far from snooping eyes bribe is almost always dressed up as some other kind of exchange.Though most of the world is plagued by corruption, even serial offenders try to conceal it.

One manifestation of this is linguistic. Surprisingly few people say: "You are going to have to pay me if you
want to get that done." Instead, they use a wide variety of euphemisms. One type is quasi-official
terminology. The term widely used at border crossings is "expediting fee". For a euphemism it is surprisingly
accurate: paying it will keep your bags, and perhaps your contraband, from being dumped onto a floor and
sifted through at a leisurely pace. (A related term, used in India, is "speed money": paying it can get essential
business permits issued considerably faster.)
The second type of euphemism dresses up a dodgy payment as a friendly favor done by the bribe-payer. There
is plenty of creative scopes. Nigerian policemen are known to ask for "a little something for the weekend".
Mexican traffic police will suggest that you buy them are fresco, a soft drink, as will Angolan and Mozambican
petty officials, who call it a gazebo in Portuguese.
Double meaning can help soothe the awkwardness of bribe-paying. Baksheesh, originally a Persian word now
found in many countries of the Middle East, can mean "tip", "alms" and "bribe". In Kenya a machine-gun wielding
guard suggested to a terrified Canadian aid worker: "Perhaps you would like to discuss this over
chai?" The young Canadian was relieved: the difficulty could be resolved with some chai, which means both "tea" and "bribe".
Along with the obscurantist language, bribe-taking culture around the world often involves the avoidance of
physically handing the money from one person to another. One obvious reason is to avoid detection, which
is why bribes are known as "envelopes" in countries from China to Greece. But avoidance of a direct handover
is common even where there is no chance of detection.There will always be some officials who will take money right from a bribe payer's hands, but most seem to prefer to find some way to hide the money from view.

Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly
differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes
just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the $50 to sneak
into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual
corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary. Thus there is no single cultural or social factor that inclines a society towards corruption, but economic factors play a big part.Most clearly, poverty and bribery go together.

 Give people power and discretion, and whether they are grand viziers or border guards, some will use their
position to enrich themselves. The problem can be big enough to hold back a country's development. For
most people in the world, though, the worry is not that corruption may slow down their country's GDP
growth. It is that their daily lives are pervaded by endless hassles, big and small. And for all the evidence that
some cultures suffer endemic corruption while others are relatively clean, attitudes towards corruption, and
even the language describing bribery, is remarkably similar around the world.
In a testament to most people's basic decency, bribe-takers and bribe-payers have developed an elaborate
theater of dissimulation. This is not just to avoid detection. Even in countries where corruption is so common
as to be unremarkable and on the prosecutor and even when the transaction happens far from snooping eyes bribe is almost always dressed up as some other kind of exchange.Though most of the world is plagued by corruption, even serial offenders try to conceal it.

One manifestation of this is linguistic. Surprisingly few people say: "You are going to have to pay me if you
want to get that done." Instead, they use a wide variety of euphemisms. One type is quasi-official
terminology. The term widely used at border crossings is "expediting fee". For a euphemism it is surprisingly
accurate: paying it will keep your bags, and perhaps your contraband, from being dumped onto a floor and
sifted through at a leisurely pace. (A related term, used in India, is "speed money": paying it can get essential
business permits issued considerably faster.)
The second type of euphemism dresses up a dodgy payment as a friendly favor done by the bribe-payer. There
is plenty of creative scopes. Nigerian policemen are known to ask for "a little something for the weekend".
Mexican traffic police will suggest that you buy them are fresco, a soft drink, as will Angolan and Mozambican
petty officials, who call it a gazebo in Portuguese.
Double meaning can help soothe the awkwardness of bribe-paying. Baksheesh, originally a Persian word now
found in many countries of the Middle East, can mean "tip", "alms" and "bribe". In Kenya a machine-gun wielding
guard suggested to a terrified Canadian aid worker: "Perhaps you would like to discuss this over
chai?" The young Canadian was relieved: the difficulty could be resolved with some chai, which means both "tea" and "bribe".
Along with the obscurantist language, bribe-taking culture around the world often involves the avoidance of
physically handing the money from one person to another. One obvious reason is to avoid detection, which
is why bribes are known as "envelopes" in countries from China to Greece. But avoidance of a direct handover
is common even where there is no chance of detection.There will always be some officials who will take money right from a bribe payer's hands, but most seem to prefer to find some way to hide the money from view.

Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly
differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes
just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the $50 to sneak
into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual
corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary. Thus there is no single cultural or social factor that inclines a society towards corruption, but economic factors play a big part.Most clearly, poverty and bribery go together.

 Give people power and discretion, and whether they are grand viziers or border guards, some will use their
position to enrich themselves. The problem can be big enough to hold back a country's development. For
most people in the world, though, the worry is not that corruption may slow down their country's GDP
growth. It is that their daily lives are pervaded by endless hassles, big and small. And for all the evidence that
some cultures suffer endemic corruption while others are relatively clean, attitudes towards corruption, and
even the language describing bribery, is remarkably similar around the world.
In a testament to most people's basic decency, bribe-takers and bribe-payers have developed an elaborate
theater of dissimulation. This is not just to avoid detection. Even in countries where corruption is so common
as to be unremarkable and on the prosecutor and even when the transaction happens far from snooping eyes bribe is almost always dressed up as some other kind of exchange.Though most of the world is plagued by corruption, even serial offenders try to conceal it.

One manifestation of this is linguistic. Surprisingly few people say: "You are going to have to pay me if you
want to get that done." Instead, they use a wide variety of euphemisms. One type is quasi-official
terminology. The term widely used at border crossings is "expediting fee". For a euphemism it is surprisingly
accurate: paying it will keep your bags, and perhaps your contraband, from being dumped onto a floor and
sifted through at a leisurely pace. (A related term, used in India, is "speed money": paying it can get essential
business permits issued considerably faster.)
The second type of euphemism dresses up a dodgy payment as a friendly favor done by the bribe-payer. There
is plenty of creative scopes. Nigerian policemen are known to ask for "a little something for the weekend".
Mexican traffic police will suggest that you buy them are fresco, a soft drink, as will Angolan and Mozambican
petty officials, who call it a gazebo in Portuguese.
Double meaning can help soothe the awkwardness of bribe-paying. Baksheesh, originally a Persian word now
found in many countries of the Middle East, can mean "tip", "alms" and "bribe". In Kenya a machine-gun wielding
guard suggested to a terrified Canadian aid worker: "Perhaps you would like to discuss this over
chai?" The young Canadian was relieved: the difficulty could be resolved with some chai, which means both "tea" and "bribe".
Along with the obscurantist language, bribe-taking culture around the world often involves the avoidance of
physically handing the money from one person to another. One obvious reason is to avoid detection, which
is why bribes are known as "envelopes" in countries from China to Greece. But avoidance of a direct handover
is common even where there is no chance of detection.There will always be some officials who will take money right from a bribe payer's hands, but most seem to prefer to find some way to hide the money from view.

Rich Westerners may not think of their societies as plagued by corruption. But the definition of bribery clearly
differs from person to person. A New Yorker might pity the third-world businessman who must pay bribes
just to keep his shop open. But the same New Yorker would not think twice about slipping the $50 to sneak
into a nice restaurant without a reservation. Poor people the world over are most infuriated by the casual
corruption of the elites rather than by the underpaid, "tip"-seeking soldier or functionary. Thus there is no single cultural or social factor that inclines a society towards corruption, but economic factors play a big part.Most clearly, poverty and bribery go together.