DIRECTIONS for questions 1 to 5: Read the given passage and answer the questions.
It is being projected as a boon for the agricultural sector. In reality, it will be the beginning of the end for Indian farmers. It has happened in the west. Ever since big retail - dominated by multi-brand retailers has entered the market, farmers have disappeared and poverty has increased. Today, not more than seven lakh farmers remain on the farms in the west. According to a report, every minute one farmer quits agriculture. Farmers' incomes have come down by more than forty per cent. These days low supermarket prices are being cited as the reason for the exodus of dairy farmers too. It is therefore futile to expect the supermarkets rescuing farmers in India.
Despite the destruction of farming globally, administrators in India are gung-ho about allowing foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing. "The agriculture sector needs well functioning markets to drive growth, employment and economic prosperity in rural areas," says a discussion paper.
Since 2006, India has allowed a partial opening up of the retail sector. Have these retail units benefited Indian farmers and the consumers? The answer is no. The argument for setting up of big retail chains' is that the supermarket chains will squeeze out the middlemen thereby providing higher prices to farmers and at the same time provide large investments for the development of post-harvest infrastructure. All these claims are untrue, and big retail has not helped farmers anywhere in the world. If the supermarkets were so efficient, why is the west providing a massive subsidy for agriculture? After all, the world's biggest retail giants are based in the west and it should have helped their farmers become economically viable. But it did not happen. Till 1950, a farmer who would receive about seventy per cent of what was spent on food receives no more than 3 to 4 per cent today. And that is why the farmers there are being supported in the form of direct income support by the government. A report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group comprising the richest 30 countries in the world, states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 per cent in 2009, up from 21 per cent in 2008. In just 2009, industrialized countries provided a subsidy of Rs 1,260 billion. And it is primarily for this reason that farm incomes are lucrative. Take the Netherlands: the average farm family income is 275 per cent of the average household income. This is because of farm subsidies, not supermarkets. India is therefore importing a failed model from the west especially when India is incapable of providing such heavy subsidies to its farmers. Regarding employment, big retail does not squeeze out middlemen from the food chain. Supermarkets claim that they remove middlemen and therefore are able to provide a higher price to farmers. In reality, what happens is the opposite. Supermarkets are themselves the big middlemen. They replace the small fish. Supermarkets replace the plethora of small middlemen. The muneem clad in a dhoti-kurta is replaced by a smartly dressed up middleman. So while the farmer pauperizes, the profit of supermarkets multiply. Based on biased studies by consultancy firms and some institutes, it is believed that supermarkets will create employment and therefore help in ameliorating poverty. This is a flawed assumption. Lessons need to be drawn from a 2004 study done at Pennsylvania State University. The authors measured the impact of a retail boom on poverty in various adjoining states. The comprehensive study clearly brings out that those American states that had more retail stores in 1987, had higher poverty rates by 1999 than the states where fewer stores were set up. At stake is the livelihood security of 120 lakh small shopkeepers, 4 crore hawkers and at least 20 crore (of the 60 crore) small farmers. What is needed is more public sector investment in setting up a chain of mandis across the country. Providing an assured market and reasonable procurement price is what Indian farmers need. This has to be supplemented by a network of food grain banks at panchayat level that assure local production and distribution. The authors measured the impact of Wal-Mart’s massive retail boom on poverty in various American states. In the past two years, Tesco had promised to create 11,000 jobs and Sainsbury another 13,000.Tesco had created only 726 jobs, while Sainsbury actually terminated the services of 1600 of its existing employees, leaving 874 people unemployed. How do we expect Tesco/Sainsbury to create additional employment in India when they have failed to stand up to their commitment back home? Big retail does not create additional employment but actually destroys the existing employment. Here is a comparison which should help remove the wool from your eyes. The Indian retail market is estimated to be around $ 400 billion with more than 120 million retailers and employing over 400 million people. On the contrary, the US-based giant Wal-Mart, a global leader in big retail, also has a turnover of US $400 billion and employs only 2.1 million people. Which one of these retail systems provides employment is crystal clear.If you think Wal-mart is here to create employment opportunities you must be living in a fool’s paradise. Simply put, they are investing in India to make money.
Which of the following is true in context of the passage?
Noticing the state of farmers in the west owing to the advent of retail giants, Indian administrators are not too keen to allow multi brand retailing in India.
Supermarket chains have provided large investments for the development of post-harvest infrastructure.
These days, farmers in the west earn several times more than their earnings half a century ago.
India is providing heavy subsidies to cover up the losses made by the farmers because of retail chain giants.
None is true
Answer: Option E.
The first option is incorrect as per the lines "Despite the destruction..........retailing." The second option is incorrect as per the lines "The argument for setting up........anywhere in the world." The third option is untrue as per the lines "Till 1950, a farmer...........by the government."After reading the last line of the fifth paragraph, we can conclude that the fourth option is incorrect
Why does the author disagree with the idea that big retail stores can salvage farmers' condition in India?
The farmers in India still prefer to sell their produce to local middlemen and mandis than to the big retail stores.
There have been examples throughout the world that the big retail chains further deteriorate the condition of the farmers.
Big retail chains buy the farmers' produce at a much lower cost as compared to the present middlemen.
The government subsidies to the farmers selling their produce directly to big retail stores is far lesser than the ones who sell their produce to the government itself.
Selling the produce to small shopkeepers and hawkers saves the farmers of the expenses involved in selling it to big retail stores which are mostly based in big cities.
Answer: Option B.
It is clearly mentioned in the first paragraph of the passage, Ever since big retail - dominated by multi-brand retailers has entered the market, farmers have disappeared and poverty has increased.
Complete the following sentence by selecting the alternative which is most appropriate in the context of the passage. Although it was assumed that retail chain giants would squeeze out middlemen from the farming sector ________.
the retail chain giants helped the farmers get subsidies from the government.
India is still contemplating allowing foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing.
the retail chain giants themselves proved to be a rambling version of the smaller middlemen.
the government was more concerned about the welfare of the farmers.
None of these
Answer: Option C.
Option C, Refer to sixth paragraph - Supermarkets are themselves the big middlemen. They replace the small fish. Supermarkets replace the plethora of small middlemen.
Which of the following have been the arguments for setting up big retail stores in India?
i) The retail chains would sell the farmers' produce at a comparatively higher price than the smaller shops so as to improve the farmers' profit.
ii) The retail chains would drive the middlemen out of the system, thus improving farmers' profit margin.
iii) Big retail chains in the west have been taking strides of growth and have been benefiting the farmers
iv) The big retail chains would provide an organized market which would bring about growth in rural areas
Only i & iii
Only iii & iv
Only i, iii & iv
Only ii & iv
All i, ii, iii & iv
Answer: Option D.
The statement (2) has been mentioned in the fourth line of the third paragraph. ''The argument for setting up of big retail chains' is that the supermarket chains will squeeze out the middlemen ........ The statement (4) has been mentioned in the last line of the second paragraph."The agriculture sector needs well functioning markets to drive growth. . .. .. . . statement 1 and statement 3 are factually wrong.
The fact that the west provides enormous subsidies to its' farmers proves that _______.
the government in the west lures the farmers into selling their produce to retail chain giants in return of such subsidies.
many farmers who had given up farming as a profession are now returning to it.
supermarkets have indeed helped in making farming a lucrative business.
the retail chains are arm twisting the government to provide subsidies to the farmers who sell their produce to them.
the retail chains have failed to benefit the farmers thus forcing the government to come to their rescue.
Answer: Option E.
The answer to this question is being given in the fourth paragraph. So it is clear that the retail stores have failed to meet the one of the objectives to provide benefits to the farmer thereby forcing the government to come to farmers' rescue. As it is government's decision to salvage its image by giving support to the farmers so it would be wrong to assume that big retail stores are forcing governments or arm twisting the governments to pay subsidies to famers in western countries, this makes option 4 wrong. Farmers are quitting their profession of farming, as per the first paragraph so this makes option 2 wrong. Government is neither luring farmers to this profession nor the retail stores have benefitted farmers as envisaged by the governments and policymakers. All this makes other options wrong.
DIRECTIONS for questions 6 to 7: Which of the phrases (1), (2), (3) and (4) given below should replace the underlined phrase given in the following sentence to make the sentence grammatically meaningful and correct
If the sentence is correct as it is and 'No correction is required', mark (5) as the answer.
The actor has been keeping lower profile for some time now.
lowering the profile
profile low
a lowest profile
a low profile
No correction required
Answer: Option D.
Correct Phrase is a low profile that means to be humble.
Though everyone was tired, Rahul was hell bend on playing another game.
bending hell on
hell bent in
hell bent on
hell bent for
No correction required
Answer: Option C.
Correct Phrase is hell bent on that means to be adamant/ stubborn about something.
DIRECTIONS for questions 8 to 9: Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence.
The number of that part is the answer. if there is 'No Error" the answer is (E). (Ignore errors of punctuation if any.)
In India, the teacher has been elevated(1)/to a position of power(2)/and a part of that power has been(3)/to assuming the right to punish the students(4)/No error(5)
1
2
3
4
5
Answer: Option D
Here the base form of the word ‘assume’ is the correct usage along with the preposition ‘to’. In other words infinitive is required instead of 'to' with continuous form of the verb.
The right to adequate amount of food(1)/and clean drinking water(2)/should be regarded as a(3)/basic right of all citizen of India(4)/No error(5)
1
2
3
4
5
Answer: Option D.
The error lies in the usage of the word ‘citizen’. The word ‘citizens’ should come in place of ‘citizen’ as after the quantifier 'all' plural noun will come.
DIRECTIONS for question 10: Read the directions given and answer the question accordingly.
In the forties, nationalization was considered the panacea for all socio economic ills. However it failed to improve substantially the socio economic situations of some countries.
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
Nationalization was not able to remove the disparities from the society in some countries.
Some countries were not mature enough to reap the benefits of the ‘nationalization’
Nationalization’ has been a dismal failure across the world
The implementation of the program was not planned.
Second world war disrupted the process.
Answer: Option A.
Option A, can be inferred safely from the last line as it was not able to improve the socio-economic conditions in some countries so it also must not had been able to remove the disparities in some countries.
