91 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
Why does the author calls 'progress' as peculiar?
ABecause Modern is good and traditional is bad.
BBecause of its unbalanced nature.
CBecause it differs politically and personally.
DNone of these.
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
92 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
What do you infer from the sentence -For some of us, life in …...but emotionally and intellectually?
AA person has one leg in one truck and the other in the second truck.
BA person meets with an accident.
CThe nation is moving in two different directions.
DThe nation is suffering from many road accidents
Answer: Option C
Explanation:C
Workspace
93 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
How does the author feel about 'Globalisation' in India?
ACurious
BHopeless
CEnthusiastic
DSpeculative
Answer: Option D
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
94 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
What does the sentence "We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.' implies?
AIndian people are barbaric in nature.
BWe are progressing in some areas and regressing in the others.
CIndia has a diverse culture.
DSome people are modern while the others are traditional in approach.
Answer: Option B
Explanation:D
Workspace
95 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
What do you infer from the sentence in context of the passage-'India lives in several centuries at the same time.'?
AWe are progressing in some areas and regressing in the others.
BPeople from different countries are living in India.
CIndia has a diverse culture.
DSome people are modern while the others are traditional in approach.
Answer: Option A
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
96 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
What do you infer from the following lines-'"n the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution? In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles."?
AIndia has a balanced mixture of both traditional and modern people.
BProgress is unbalanced.
CDigital revolution is very important for our economic growth.
DThere is shortage of electricity in India.
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
97 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
What does the phrase "cultural insult" imply?
APeople from one culture do not respect people from the other cultures.
BDisrespect of British towards Indian Culture.
CWhite people's definition for us.
DIll-treatment at hands of British
Answer: Option B
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
98 / 910
India lives in several centuries at the same time. Somehow we manage to progress and regress simultaneously. As a nation we age by pushing outward from the middle--adding a few centuries on either end of the extraordinary CV. We greaten like the maturing head of a hammerhead shark with eyes looking in diametrically opposite directions.
I don't mean to put a simplistic value judgment on this peculiar form of "progress" by suggesting that Modern is Good and Traditional is Bad--or vice versa. What's hard to reconcile oneself to, both personally and politically, is the schizophrenic nature of it. That applies not just to the ancient/modern conundrum but to the utter illogic of what appears to be the current national enterprise. In the lane behind my house, every night I walk past road gangs of emaciated labourers digging a trench to lay fiber-optic cables to speed up our digital revolution. In the bitter winter cold, they work by the light of a few candles.
It's as though the people of India have been rounded up and loaded onto two convoys of trucks (a huge big one and a tiny little one) that have set off resolutely in opposite directions. The tiny convoy is on its way to a glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world. The other convoy just melts into the darkness and disappears. A cursory survey that tallies the caste, class and religion of who gets to be on which convoy would make a good Lazy Person's concise Guide to the History of India. For some of us, life in India is like being suspended between two of the trucks, one leg in each convoy, and being neatly dismembered as they move apart, not bodily, but emotionally and intellectually.
Sixty years after independence, India is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism, still flinching from the "cultural insult." As citizens we're still caught up in the business of "disproving" the white world's definition of us. Intellectually and emotionally, we have just begun to grapple with communal and caste politics that threaten to tear our society apart. But meanwhile, something new looms on our horizon. On the face of it, it's just ordinary, day-to-day business. It lacks the drama, the large-format, epic magnificence of war or genocide or famine. It's dull in comparison. It makes bad TV. It has to do with boring things like jobs, money, water supply, electricity, irrigation. But it also has to do with a process of barbaric dispossession on a scale that has few parallels in history. You may have guessed by now that I'm talking about the modern version of globalization.
What is globalization? Who is it for? What is it going to do to a country like India, in which social inequality has been institutionalized in the caste system for centuries? Is the corporatization and globalization of agriculture, water supply, electricity and essential commodities going to pull India out of the stagnant morass of poverty, illiteracy and religious bigotry? Is the dismantling and auctioning off of elaborate public sector infrastructure, developed with public money over the past sixty years, really the way forward? Is globalization going to close the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged, between the upper castes and the lower castes, between the educated and the illiterate? Or is it going to give those who already have a centuries-old head start a friendly helping hand? These are huge, contentious questions. The answers vary depending on whether they come from the villages and fields of rural India, from the slums and shantytowns of urban India, from the living rooms of the burgeoning middle class or from the boardrooms of the big business houses.
Read Full Paragraph
Why does the response towards 'Globalisation in India' differs in different parts of India?
ADue to different literacy levels.
BDue to religious diversity in India.
CIt will not benefit all sections of the society.
DIt may not have all the answers to India's current problems.
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
99 / 910
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.
Read Full Paragraph
In summary what does the passage primarily suggest and provide evidence for?
ACorruption is always concealed in some way, both linguistically and in the process.
BCorruption exists only in developing economies.
CCorruption is an unethical practice.
DCorruption slows down GDP growth.
Answer: Option A
Explanation:A
Workspace
100 / 910
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.
Read Full Paragraph
What is the author most likely to agree to?
APeople generally do not try to hide money taken as bribe.
BPeople hide money taken as bribe primarily to avoid detection.
CPeople hide money taken as bribe from view even if detection possibility is low.
DNone of these
Answer: Option C
Explanation:Here is no explanation for this answer
Workspace
Companies take reading comprehension test to check the reading and grasping skills of the candidates. It also helps the companies to understand the pressure handling skills of the candidates. You can take mock verbal ability and reading comprehension test to master this skill and crack the job interviews easily.
You can search the set of questions by company (Please click on a company box under the tag cloud box) to filter the questions easily. You can also view the answer to understand the explanation or use the workspace for practice purpose. So, improve your verbal ability and reading comprehension skills today and crack the job interview comfortable with flying colors!
In this practice section, you can practice Verbal Ability Questions based on "Reading Comprehension" and improve your skills in order to face the interview, competitive examination, IT companies Written exam, and various other entrance tests (CAT, GATE, GRE, MAT, Bank Exam, Railway Exam etc.) with full confidence.
Q4Interview provides you lots of fully solved Verbal Ability (Reading Comprehension) questions and answers with Explanation. Solved examples with detailed answer description, explanation are given and it would be easy to understand. You can download Verbal Ability Reading Comprehension quiz questions with answers as PDF files and eBooks.
Here you can find objective type Verbal Ability Reading Comprehension questions and answers for interview and entrance examination. Multiple choice and true or false type questions are also provided.