'Life has proved to be a veritable enigma' means that ___________________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
A psychic spiritual life reading is an in–depth evaluation of one's soul, both past and present and is intended for those individuals who want a deeper insight about their soul's evolutionary journey throughout their various incarnations and how that journey is affecting their present life. These readings speak directly to the heart of the individual giving insight and solutions to present day problems by reuniting the consciousnesswith its truespiritual heritage. The focus of the work is on helping others in their pursuit of soul growth and spiritual understanding. All areas of a person's life are covered with emphasis placed on the underlying spiritual energy that governs each issue. Questions are encouraged by the individual and pathways are suggested that serve as a catalyst towards balanced empowerment in one's life.

For centuries life has proved to be a veritable enigma of humanity at the globe. Saints and Sages, not to speak of the myriads of ordinary mortals, men and women, have wondered what the real purpose of life is, what God really wanted human beings to do, how life began and what the solutions to the various mysteries of terrestrial existence are. It has been said that the greatest mystery in the universe is we ourselves. Scientists as well as non– scientists have also posed the questions: What is life? How did it begin? Is there life after death?

Time was when people contented themselves by merely saying that God is responsible for what we are and what we shall become. But now such simple, and in part evasive, answers are not accepted. The spread of education and all–round enlightenment and inquisitiveness prompt people to go deeper into the matter. Hans Christian Anderson, the famous author of fairy tales, wrote: "Every man's life is a fairy tale, written by God's fingers."

The Almighty's fingers, assuming He had a human form, did perform miracles, and human life itself is a miracle on earth. The view is extended to signify that miracles are beyond human comprehension; this being so, it is contended that speculation and the theorizing about what life was meant to be and what it would be in years to come are futile exercises.

But one kind of exercise is the scientific, or rather the chemical. In hundreds of laboratories in many continents, especially the American, scientists have been probing the mysteries of life. But the results they have so far obtained, after prolonged research, in effect create as many mysteries as the ones they seek to solve. Science thus has no better solution to offer than the one dictated by the laboratory examinations and analyses.

According to a mechanistic view of the universe, and thus of origins, the whole of reality is evolution — a single process of self–transformation. Everything in the universe, according to this view, has evolved from a chaotic or random state of matter. This evolutionary continuum thus requires that life arose on this planet (or on some planet, at least) from inanimate matter via chemical and physical processes still operating today. It is generally believed that these processes acted for many tens of millions of years, most likely hundreds of millions of years, before true cellular life was brought into being.

Chemically, life can be seen as the linking of certain types of organic molecules, known as amino acids, to form more complex substances. But the point at which a mere collection of lifeless chemicals (which can be had by the tonne from the market) becomes a living creature is still not precisely known. Some scientists believe that life emerges when the chemicals are able to "eat" other molecules and grow as a result.

Many laboratories, supported by government and university funds, are devoted to pursuing origin of life theories. Laboratory exercises and the speculations that have inspired them have resulted in a large number of publications and national and international symposia.

The results of the laboratory on probing of life's mysteries are ____________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
A psychic spiritual life reading is an in–depth evaluation of one's soul, both past and present and is intended for those individuals who want a deeper insight about their soul's evolutionary journey throughout their various incarnations and how that journey is affecting their present life. These readings speak directly to the heart of the individual giving insight and solutions to present day problems by reuniting the consciousnesswith its truespiritual heritage. The focus of the work is on helping others in their pursuit of soul growth and spiritual understanding. All areas of a person's life are covered with emphasis placed on the underlying spiritual energy that governs each issue. Questions are encouraged by the individual and pathways are suggested that serve as a catalyst towards balanced empowerment in one's life.

For centuries life has proved to be a veritable enigma of humanity at the globe. Saints and Sages, not to speak of the myriads of ordinary mortals, men and women, have wondered what the real purpose of life is, what God really wanted human beings to do, how life began and what the solutions to the various mysteries of terrestrial existence are. It has been said that the greatest mystery in the universe is we ourselves. Scientists as well as non– scientists have also posed the questions: What is life? How did it begin? Is there life after death?

Time was when people contented themselves by merely saying that God is responsible for what we are and what we shall become. But now such simple, and in part evasive, answers are not accepted. The spread of education and all–round enlightenment and inquisitiveness prompt people to go deeper into the matter. Hans Christian Anderson, the famous author of fairy tales, wrote: "Every man's life is a fairy tale, written by God's fingers."

The Almighty's fingers, assuming He had a human form, did perform miracles, and human life itself is a miracle on earth. The view is extended to signify that miracles are beyond human comprehension; this being so, it is contended that speculation and the theorizing about what life was meant to be and what it would be in years to come are futile exercises.

But one kind of exercise is the scientific, or rather the chemical. In hundreds of laboratories in many continents, especially the American, scientists have been probing the mysteries of life. But the results they have so far obtained, after prolonged research, in effect create as many mysteries as the ones they seek to solve. Science thus has no better solution to offer than the one dictated by the laboratory examinations and analyses.

According to a mechanistic view of the universe, and thus of origins, the whole of reality is evolution — a single process of self–transformation. Everything in the universe, according to this view, has evolved from a chaotic or random state of matter. This evolutionary continuum thus requires that life arose on this planet (or on some planet, at least) from inanimate matter via chemical and physical processes still operating today. It is generally believed that these processes acted for many tens of millions of years, most likely hundreds of millions of years, before true cellular life was brought into being.

Chemically, life can be seen as the linking of certain types of organic molecules, known as amino acids, to form more complex substances. But the point at which a mere collection of lifeless chemicals (which can be had by the tonne from the market) becomes a living creature is still not precisely known. Some scientists believe that life emerges when the chemicals are able to "eat" other molecules and grow as a result.

Many laboratories, supported by government and university funds, are devoted to pursuing origin of life theories. Laboratory exercises and the speculations that have inspired them have resulted in a large number of publications and national and international symposia.

Which of these is not the author's view?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
A psychic spiritual life reading is an in–depth evaluation of one's soul, both past and present and is intended for those individuals who want a deeper insight about their soul's evolutionary journey throughout their various incarnations and how that journey is affecting their present life. These readings speak directly to the heart of the individual giving insight and solutions to present day problems by reuniting the consciousnesswith its truespiritual heritage. The focus of the work is on helping others in their pursuit of soul growth and spiritual understanding. All areas of a person's life are covered with emphasis placed on the underlying spiritual energy that governs each issue. Questions are encouraged by the individual and pathways are suggested that serve as a catalyst towards balanced empowerment in one's life.

For centuries life has proved to be a veritable enigma of humanity at the globe. Saints and Sages, not to speak of the myriads of ordinary mortals, men and women, have wondered what the real purpose of life is, what God really wanted human beings to do, how life began and what the solutions to the various mysteries of terrestrial existence are. It has been said that the greatest mystery in the universe is we ourselves. Scientists as well as non– scientists have also posed the questions: What is life? How did it begin? Is there life after death?

Time was when people contented themselves by merely saying that God is responsible for what we are and what we shall become. But now such simple, and in part evasive, answers are not accepted. The spread of education and all–round enlightenment and inquisitiveness prompt people to go deeper into the matter. Hans Christian Anderson, the famous author of fairy tales, wrote: "Every man's life is a fairy tale, written by God's fingers."

The Almighty's fingers, assuming He had a human form, did perform miracles, and human life itself is a miracle on earth. The view is extended to signify that miracles are beyond human comprehension; this being so, it is contended that speculation and the theorizing about what life was meant to be and what it would be in years to come are futile exercises.

But one kind of exercise is the scientific, or rather the chemical. In hundreds of laboratories in many continents, especially the American, scientists have been probing the mysteries of life. But the results they have so far obtained, after prolonged research, in effect create as many mysteries as the ones they seek to solve. Science thus has no better solution to offer than the one dictated by the laboratory examinations and analyses.

According to a mechanistic view of the universe, and thus of origins, the whole of reality is evolution — a single process of self–transformation. Everything in the universe, according to this view, has evolved from a chaotic or random state of matter. This evolutionary continuum thus requires that life arose on this planet (or on some planet, at least) from inanimate matter via chemical and physical processes still operating today. It is generally believed that these processes acted for many tens of millions of years, most likely hundreds of millions of years, before true cellular life was brought into being.

Chemically, life can be seen as the linking of certain types of organic molecules, known as amino acids, to form more complex substances. But the point at which a mere collection of lifeless chemicals (which can be had by the tonne from the market) becomes a living creature is still not precisely known. Some scientists believe that life emerges when the chemicals are able to "eat" other molecules and grow as a result.

Many laboratories, supported by government and university funds, are devoted to pursuing origin of life theories. Laboratory exercises and the speculations that have inspired them have resulted in a large number of publications and national and international symposia.

What is the main purpose of the passage?

Read the passage and answer the following question:

The Fiscal Year 2003–04 promises to be a good one for the Indian economy ending five years of deceleration. However, is it going to be a recovery facilitated by the excellent monsoon of 2003 or by a substantial jump in private and public investment? The answer will not be found in the first Quarterly Statement on the Economy and Budget, which the Union Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh, has tabled in Parliament. It is perhaps unfair to expect the Finance Ministry report, the first quarterly review mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility and Management Act, to forecast the shape of the economic recovery in 2003–04. It is, however, important to look more closely at the broad picture of optimism painted in the review of the economy in April–June 2003.
The Center’s gross tax revenue grew by 14 per cent in the first quarter. This was slower than the growth in the corresponding period of 2002–03, but better than the 13.3 per cent increase budgeted for all of 2003–04. Direct tax collections have been better than expected and customs duty receipts are on target. What should be cause for worry is the decline by 16.6 per cent in collections from excise duty, which is still the single largest source of tax revenue. This trend is not consistent with the 5 per cent growth in industrial production in the first two months of the year. The Government's explanation for the fall in excise revenue, that this is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a change in tax procedures and a brief uncertainty in the textile industry, is not entirely convincing. If the Government's fiscal deficit has stayed under control in the first quarter, it is because a decline in interest payments following a dip in interest rates has brought spending down. The subsidy bill, always a problem, could however rise disconcertingly as the Government will be buying more grain and at higher prices. In a good agricultural year, farmers always tend to sell more grain to the state agencies, and procurement prices were raised recently.
There is no doubt that agricultural production will increase significantly this year in both the kharif and rabi seasons. Since the net output of the agriculture sector registered a negative growth of over 3 per cent in 2002–03, the present recovery will push up the growth rate of the economy in 2003–04. Higher incomes in agriculture will boost the demand for industrial products and services, contributing in the process to an all–round acceleration in growth. Revenue from direct and indirect taxes too should increase. All these developments provide the Government the opportunity to take initiatives that will help the economy move to a higher growth path. There are, however, no signs of such action by the Government. For instance, the Centre has done little about its proposed public–private partnership for boosting public investment in infrastructure, the main growth initiative announced in the Union budget. The Government has introduced cash management measures in some Ministries and retired a part of the expensive debt with banks, as promised in the budget. But these are only housekeeping measures. They will do nothing to provide a new impetus to growth.

The tone of the passage is ________________.

Read the passage and answer the following question:

The Fiscal Year 2003–04 promises to be a good one for the Indian economy ending five years of deceleration. However, is it going to be a recovery facilitated by the excellent monsoon of 2003 or by a substantial jump in private and public investment? The answer will not be found in the first Quarterly Statement on the Economy and Budget, which the Union Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh, has tabled in Parliament. It is perhaps unfair to expect the Finance Ministry report, the first quarterly review mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility and Management Act, to forecast the shape of the economic recovery in 2003–04. It is, however, important to look more closely at the broad picture of optimism painted in the review of the economy in April–June 2003.
The Center’s gross tax revenue grew by 14 per cent in the first quarter. This was slower than the growth in the corresponding period of 2002–03, but better than the 13.3 per cent increase budgeted for all of 2003–04. Direct tax collections have been better than expected and customs duty receipts are on target. What should be cause for worry is the decline by 16.6 per cent in collections from excise duty, which is still the single largest source of tax revenue. This trend is not consistent with the 5 per cent growth in industrial production in the first two months of the year. The Government's explanation for the fall in excise revenue, that this is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a change in tax procedures and a brief uncertainty in the textile industry, is not entirely convincing. If the Government's fiscal deficit has stayed under control in the first quarter, it is because a decline in interest payments following a dip in interest rates has brought spending down. The subsidy bill, always a problem, could however rise disconcertingly as the Government will be buying more grain and at higher prices. In a good agricultural year, farmers always tend to sell more grain to the state agencies, and procurement prices were raised recently.
There is no doubt that agricultural production will increase significantly this year in both the kharif and rabi seasons. Since the net output of the agriculture sector registered a negative growth of over 3 per cent in 2002–03, the present recovery will push up the growth rate of the economy in 2003–04. Higher incomes in agriculture will boost the demand for industrial products and services, contributing in the process to an all–round acceleration in growth. Revenue from direct and indirect taxes too should increase. All these developments provide the Government the opportunity to take initiatives that will help the economy move to a higher growth path. There are, however, no signs of such action by the Government. For instance, the Centre has done little about its proposed public–private partnership for boosting public investment in infrastructure, the main growth initiative announced in the Union budget. The Government has introduced cash management measures in some Ministries and retired a part of the expensive debt with banks, as promised in the budget. But these are only housekeeping measures. They will do nothing to provide a new impetus to growth.

How should the Titanic III end, according to the author?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

One possible conclusion from the passage is that ______________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

What was the reason that women were given preferential treatment on the Titanic?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

Which of the following statements is true?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

The author of the passage would agree with which of the following? I. Gas transmission should be a monopoly. II. Gas transmission should be a restrictive monopoly. III. Gas transmission should not be a monopoly, without a regulator.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Should GAIL have monopoly over pipelines? Should a large country like India with a huge appetite for gas and diverse potential sources of supply have a single company owning and operating all the trunk pipelines, or would competition serve the public cause better?

A high investment infrastructure like gas transmission is and should be a monopoly, but in a somewhat narrow sense. The more appropriate question to ask is should we have a monopoly in gas pipelines rather than should GAIL have a monopoly. Gas transmission is essentially a natural monopoly and we are talking of fairly large stakes. The size of the business in India today is worth over half a billion dollars and in the next 4–5 years, with the kind of supply projections that are being predicted, this business could be worth a billion dollars. In a growing economy with significant backlog of investments in basic infrastructure, it is imperative for policy and decision makers to ensure that the principles and fundamentals of gas transmission are laid out properly. Issues such as open competition in gas transmission infrastructure, the advantages or disadvantages of allowing gas producers and marketers to build and operate this infrastructure and the nature of regulation that should be put in place to enable the development and growth of an efficient gas market are critical.

Like other high investment infrastructure, gas transmission is and should be a monopoly — but in a somewhat narrow sense. The business need not be owned and operated by a single agency in a vast country like India. We can encourage two or three players in the country from the private or public sector. As long as we have strong regulation — on service standards, technical standards, interconnectivity issues, pricing and investments — we are likely to get an optimal use of resources and satisfied users. Now why do we argue that multiple and parallel pipeline infrastructure is not desirable. The answer simply is that we should not use the scarce resources, be they public or private, in creating multiple assets when there is a need for resource optimization. The presence of multiple pipelines will undermine the economics of connectivity, even though a strong and efficient regulator could try to avoid it. There is of course a strong need to create mechanisms wherein the most efficient player can build and operate the pipelines. The competition should be at the conceptualization and planning stage so that the most efficient player is selected to build and operate the pipeline.

The next important issue is whether there is a conflict of interest in allowing gas producers/marketers to set up pipelines. Ideally, the supplier, transporter and distributor should be separate entities with each of them concentrating on their core areas of expertise. The supplier has to be an efficient gas producer (upstream player), the transporter should be one who is very good at managing inter–state and inter–country pipelines and the distributor should be one who understands the needs of the customers. A core transporter need not necessarily be a good distributor. India should evolve a mechanism where there are multiple producers supplying gas through a single trunk pipeline grid and having multiple distributors. Because we are at a fairly nascent stage today, the lack of a national grid should be seen as an advantage as it gives us the opportunity to plan our system well.

Strong regulation in the infrastructure sectors has always been a matter of serious debate in India. While we have made tremendous progress on the regulatory learning curve, there still are many unanswered questions and investor confidence is still nowhere near the desired level. The regulatory model for the gas transmission sector should take into account the interests of consumers on one hand and ensure the health of the industry on the other. The independence of the regulator is paramount. The funding for the regulator should come from all industry players. Tariff determination whether it is cost to serve, or any other model, should be aimed at ensuring efficient operation and development of capacity. It should also be ensured that the tariffs are equitable for customers and investors. The nature of the infrastructure and market for gas transmission implies a jurisdiction for the regulator that should cut across states and the country as a whole. This is primarily driven by the fact that regulating gas grids is a fairly complex issue and is best regulated by a single agency. Moreover, conflict of interest between Central and State entities could hamper speedy implementation of projects. A good regulator will ensure that there is non discriminatory access, transparency and third party access to gas infrastructure.

What was the original reason for the feud between IBM and Microsoft?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

As a result of greater competition in the US Computer industry, ____________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

What is the tone of the passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Should GAIL have monopoly over pipelines? Should a large country like India with a huge appetite for gas and diverse potential sources of supply have a single company owning and operating all the trunk pipelines, or would competition serve the public cause better?

A high investment infrastructure like gas transmission is and should be a monopoly, but in a somewhat narrow sense. The more appropriate question to ask is should we have a monopoly in gas pipelines rather than should GAIL have a monopoly. Gas transmission is essentially a natural monopoly and we are talking of fairly large stakes. The size of the business in India today is worth over half a billion dollars and in the next 4–5 years, with the kind of supply projections that are being predicted, this business could be worth a billion dollars. In a growing economy with significant backlog of investments in basic infrastructure, it is imperative for policy and decision makers to ensure that the principles and fundamentals of gas transmission are laid out properly. Issues such as open competition in gas transmission infrastructure, the advantages or disadvantages of allowing gas producers and marketers to build and operate this infrastructure and the nature of regulation that should be put in place to enable the development and growth of an efficient gas market are critical.

Like other high investment infrastructure, gas transmission is and should be a monopoly — but in a somewhat narrow sense. The business need not be owned and operated by a single agency in a vast country like India. We can encourage two or three players in the country from the private or public sector. As long as we have strong regulation — on service standards, technical standards, interconnectivity issues, pricing and investments — we are likely to get an optimal use of resources and satisfied users. Now why do we argue that multiple and parallel pipeline infrastructure is not desirable. The answer simply is that we should not use the scarce resources, be they public or private, in creating multiple assets when there is a need for resource optimization. The presence of multiple pipelines will undermine the economics of connectivity, even though a strong and efficient regulator could try to avoid it. There is of course a strong need to create mechanisms wherein the most efficient player can build and operate the pipelines. The competition should be at the conceptualization and planning stage so that the most efficient player is selected to build and operate the pipeline.

The next important issue is whether there is a conflict of interest in allowing gas producers/marketers to set up pipelines. Ideally, the supplier, transporter and distributor should be separate entities with each of them concentrating on their core areas of expertise. The supplier has to be an efficient gas producer (upstream player), the transporter should be one who is very good at managing inter–state and inter–country pipelines and the distributor should be one who understands the needs of the customers. A core transporter need not necessarily be a good distributor. India should evolve a mechanism where there are multiple producers supplying gas through a single trunk pipeline grid and having multiple distributors. Because we are at a fairly nascent stage today, the lack of a national grid should be seen as an advantage as it gives us the opportunity to plan our system well.

Strong regulation in the infrastructure sectors has always been a matter of serious debate in India. While we have made tremendous progress on the regulatory learning curve, there still are many unanswered questions and investor confidence is still nowhere near the desired level. The regulatory model for the gas transmission sector should take into account the interests of consumers on one hand and ensure the health of the industry on the other. The independence of the regulator is paramount. The funding for the regulator should come from all industry players. Tariff determination whether it is cost to serve, or any other model, should be aimed at ensuring efficient operation and development of capacity. It should also be ensured that the tariffs are equitable for customers and investors. The nature of the infrastructure and market for gas transmission implies a jurisdiction for the regulator that should cut across states and the country as a whole. This is primarily driven by the fact that regulating gas grids is a fairly complex issue and is best regulated by a single agency. Moreover, conflict of interest between Central and State entities could hamper speedy implementation of projects. A good regulator will ensure that there is non discriminatory access, transparency and third party access to gas infrastructure.

With which of the following arguments, the author is most likely to agree?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

Which among the following statements can be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Should GAIL have monopoly over pipelines? Should a large country like India with a huge appetite for gas and diverse potential sources of supply have a single company owning and operating all the trunk pipelines, or would competition serve the public cause better?

A high investment infrastructure like gas transmission is and should be a monopoly, but in a somewhat narrow sense. The more appropriate question to ask is should we have a monopoly in gas pipelines rather than should GAIL have a monopoly. Gas transmission is essentially a natural monopoly and we are talking of fairly large stakes. The size of the business in India today is worth over half a billion dollars and in the next 4–5 years, with the kind of supply projections that are being predicted, this business could be worth a billion dollars. In a growing economy with significant backlog of investments in basic infrastructure, it is imperative for policy and decision makers to ensure that the principles and fundamentals of gas transmission are laid out properly. Issues such as open competition in gas transmission infrastructure, the advantages or disadvantages of allowing gas producers and marketers to build and operate this infrastructure and the nature of regulation that should be put in place to enable the development and growth of an efficient gas market are critical.

Like other high investment infrastructure, gas transmission is and should be a monopoly — but in a somewhat narrow sense. The business need not be owned and operated by a single agency in a vast country like India. We can encourage two or three players in the country from the private or public sector. As long as we have strong regulation — on service standards, technical standards, interconnectivity issues, pricing and investments — we are likely to get an optimal use of resources and satisfied users. Now why do we argue that multiple and parallel pipeline infrastructure is not desirable. The answer simply is that we should not use the scarce resources, be they public or private, in creating multiple assets when there is a need for resource optimization. The presence of multiple pipelines will undermine the economics of connectivity, even though a strong and efficient regulator could try to avoid it. There is of course a strong need to create mechanisms wherein the most efficient player can build and operate the pipelines. The competition should be at the conceptualization and planning stage so that the most efficient player is selected to build and operate the pipeline.

The next important issue is whether there is a conflict of interest in allowing gas producers/marketers to set up pipelines. Ideally, the supplier, transporter and distributor should be separate entities with each of them concentrating on their core areas of expertise. The supplier has to be an efficient gas producer (upstream player), the transporter should be one who is very good at managing inter–state and inter–country pipelines and the distributor should be one who understands the needs of the customers. A core transporter need not necessarily be a good distributor. India should evolve a mechanism where there are multiple producers supplying gas through a single trunk pipeline grid and having multiple distributors. Because we are at a fairly nascent stage today, the lack of a national grid should be seen as an advantage as it gives us the opportunity to plan our system well.

Strong regulation in the infrastructure sectors has always been a matter of serious debate in India. While we have made tremendous progress on the regulatory learning curve, there still are many unanswered questions and investor confidence is still nowhere near the desired level. The regulatory model for the gas transmission sector should take into account the interests of consumers on one hand and ensure the health of the industry on the other. The independence of the regulator is paramount. The funding for the regulator should come from all industry players. Tariff determination whether it is cost to serve, or any other model, should be aimed at ensuring efficient operation and development of capacity. It should also be ensured that the tariffs are equitable for customers and investors. The nature of the infrastructure and market for gas transmission implies a jurisdiction for the regulator that should cut across states and the country as a whole. This is primarily driven by the fact that regulating gas grids is a fairly complex issue and is best regulated by a single agency. Moreover, conflict of interest between Central and State entities could hamper speedy implementation of projects. A good regulator will ensure that there is non discriminatory access, transparency and third party access to gas infrastructure.

Which among the following questions is answered in the passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Should GAIL have monopoly over pipelines? Should a large country like India with a huge appetite for gas and diverse potential sources of supply have a single company owning and operating all the trunk pipelines, or would competition serve the public cause better?

A high investment infrastructure like gas transmission is and should be a monopoly, but in a somewhat narrow sense. The more appropriate question to ask is should we have a monopoly in gas pipelines rather than should GAIL have a monopoly. Gas transmission is essentially a natural monopoly and we are talking of fairly large stakes. The size of the business in India today is worth over half a billion dollars and in the next 4–5 years, with the kind of supply projections that are being predicted, this business could be worth a billion dollars. In a growing economy with significant backlog of investments in basic infrastructure, it is imperative for policy and decision makers to ensure that the principles and fundamentals of gas transmission are laid out properly. Issues such as open competition in gas transmission infrastructure, the advantages or disadvantages of allowing gas producers and marketers to build and operate this infrastructure and the nature of regulation that should be put in place to enable the development and growth of an efficient gas market are critical.

Like other high investment infrastructure, gas transmission is and should be a monopoly — but in a somewhat narrow sense. The business need not be owned and operated by a single agency in a vast country like India. We can encourage two or three players in the country from the private or public sector. As long as we have strong regulation — on service standards, technical standards, interconnectivity issues, pricing and investments — we are likely to get an optimal use of resources and satisfied users. Now why do we argue that multiple and parallel pipeline infrastructure is not desirable. The answer simply is that we should not use the scarce resources, be they public or private, in creating multiple assets when there is a need for resource optimization. The presence of multiple pipelines will undermine the economics of connectivity, even though a strong and efficient regulator could try to avoid it. There is of course a strong need to create mechanisms wherein the most efficient player can build and operate the pipelines. The competition should be at the conceptualization and planning stage so that the most efficient player is selected to build and operate the pipeline.

The next important issue is whether there is a conflict of interest in allowing gas producers/marketers to set up pipelines. Ideally, the supplier, transporter and distributor should be separate entities with each of them concentrating on their core areas of expertise. The supplier has to be an efficient gas producer (upstream player), the transporter should be one who is very good at managing inter–state and inter–country pipelines and the distributor should be one who understands the needs of the customers. A core transporter need not necessarily be a good distributor. India should evolve a mechanism where there are multiple producers supplying gas through a single trunk pipeline grid and having multiple distributors. Because we are at a fairly nascent stage today, the lack of a national grid should be seen as an advantage as it gives us the opportunity to plan our system well.

Strong regulation in the infrastructure sectors has always been a matter of serious debate in India. While we have made tremendous progress on the regulatory learning curve, there still are many unanswered questions and investor confidence is still nowhere near the desired level. The regulatory model for the gas transmission sector should take into account the interests of consumers on one hand and ensure the health of the industry on the other. The independence of the regulator is paramount. The funding for the regulator should come from all industry players. Tariff determination whether it is cost to serve, or any other model, should be aimed at ensuring efficient operation and development of capacity. It should also be ensured that the tariffs are equitable for customers and investors. The nature of the infrastructure and market for gas transmission implies a jurisdiction for the regulator that should cut across states and the country as a whole. This is primarily driven by the fact that regulating gas grids is a fairly complex issue and is best regulated by a single agency. Moreover, conflict of interest between Central and State entities could hamper speedy implementation of projects. A good regulator will ensure that there is non discriminatory access, transparency and third party access to gas infrastructure.

According to the author, the reason that women still get special privileges is that _________________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

Which of the following statements is not implied in the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

We can say that the tone of the essay is _______________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

The essay is an attempt at/to _______________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

Which has been mentioned as the principal supplier of silicon chips to IBM?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

According to the author, the primary charm of the Titanic is in ________________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"

Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                                   

But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?

Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenseless and blameless.

That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.

"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.

But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?

The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.

The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.

But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.

But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.

Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.

Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

What happened 70 years ago?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

As we enter the new millennium, computer science is an enormously vibrant field. From its inception just half a century ago, computing has become the defining technology of our age. Computers are integral to modern culture and are the primary engine behind much of the world's economic growth. The field, moreover, continues to evolve at an astonishing pace. New technologies are introduced continually, and existing ones become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

The rapid evolution of the discipline has a profound effect on computer science education, affecting both content and pedagogy. When CC1991 was published, for example, networking was not seen as a major topic area, accounting for only six hours in the common requirements. The lack of emphasis on networking is not particularly surprising. After all, networking was not yet a mass–market phenomenon and the World Wide Web was little more than an idea in the minds of its creators. Today, networking and the web have become the underpinning for much of our economy. They have become critical foundations of computer science, and it is impossible to imagine that undergraduate programs would not devote significantly more time to this topic. At the same time, the existence of the web has changed the nature of the educational process itself. Modern networking technology enhances everyone's ability to communicate and gives people throughout the world unprecedented access to information. In most academic programs today –– not only in computer science but in other fields as well –– networking technology has become an essential pedagogical tool.

The charter of the CC2001 Task Force requires us to review the Joint ACM and IEEE/CS Computing Curricula 1991 and develop a revised and enhanced version for the year 2001 that will match the latest developments of computing technologies. To do so, we felt it was important to spend part of our effort getting a sense of what aspects of computer science had changed over the last decade. We believe that these changes fall into two categories –– technical and cultural –– each of which has a significant effect on computer science education. The major changes in each of these categories are described in the individual sections that follow.

How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the only king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the screen of the industry that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM's new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.

What has happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company's 79–year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,00 jobs since 1985. Recently IBM announced to its shell–shocked investors that it lost $ 497 billion last fiscal, the biggest loss in American corporate history.

And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry's most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM's. Last week, with IBM's stock at an 11–year low, Microsoft's value surpassed its old mentor's for the first time ever and Intel is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel's profits jumped 33% and Microsoft's rose 47%.

Both Intel, the world's largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world's largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry's pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age-one that recalls transition in the U.S. auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan's upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America's No. 1 carmaker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang and Unisys, and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel and AT&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. Just like Dr Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors, says Richard Shatter, publisher of the Computer Letter. Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creation it unleashed.

Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling–out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal–computer software. Microsoft developed the new famous disk operating system for the IBM–PC called DOS–and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry's imagination. Microsoft's competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft's highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorised use.

IBM and Intel have also parted company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara California Company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM began selling a low–cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival advanced Micro Devices, IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And last October IBM said it would begin selling the company's own chips, to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.

IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any future dominance by lntel's and Microsoft. Last year it teamed up with both companies that were the most bitter rivals, Apple Computer and Motorola, to develop advanced software and microprocessors. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft's standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel's computer chips, Apple's software runs only on Motorola's.

Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple's Macintosh or IBM's OS/2. Its competitive juices now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1998, a year ahead of schedule.

After the failed Macintosh Portable of 1989, a much more popular laptop, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. The first of these was co–designed with Sony, and established the modern layout for laptop computers that has remained popular ever since, with a rear hinge supporting the screen and a keyboard placed towards the back of the lower deck with a trackball (later track pad) in front. However, the PowerBook brand suffered a blow when the PowerBook 5300 model suffered many quality problems, such as their Lithium–ion batteries exploding, their cases chipping easily, and their poor quality screens. Products from Apple past & present also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS, Mac OS X, and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk, and multimedia programs like QuickTime and the Final Cut series. In 1994, Apple revamped its Macintosh line with the introduction of the Power Macintosh, which was based on the PowerPC line of processors developed by IBM, Motorola and Apple. These processors utilised RISC architecture, which differed substantially from the Motorola 680X0 series that preceded it. Apple's operating system software was adjusted so that most software written for the older processors could run in emulation on the PowerPC series.

Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage? I. Decrease in the excise revenue is consistent with the decrease in industrial production. II. Overall tax revenue has decreased, whereas, revenue from excise has increased. III. Revenue from excise will increase in the coming times. IV. Decrease in exports led to decrease in customs revenue.

Read the passage and answer the following question:

The Fiscal Year 2003–04 promises to be a good one for the Indian economy ending five years of deceleration. However, is it going to be a recovery facilitated by the excellent monsoon of 2003 or by a substantial jump in private and public investment? The answer will not be found in the first Quarterly Statement on the Economy and Budget, which the Union Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh, has tabled in Parliament. It is perhaps unfair to expect the Finance Ministry report, the first quarterly review mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility and Management Act, to forecast the shape of the economic recovery in 2003–04. It is, however, important to look more closely at the broad picture of optimism painted in the review of the economy in April–June 2003.
The Center’s gross tax revenue grew by 14 per cent in the first quarter. This was slower than the growth in the corresponding period of 2002–03, but better than the 13.3 per cent increase budgeted for all of 2003–04. Direct tax collections have been better than expected and customs duty receipts are on target. What should be cause for worry is the decline by 16.6 per cent in collections from excise duty, which is still the single largest source of tax revenue. This trend is not consistent with the 5 per cent growth in industrial production in the first two months of the year. The Government's explanation for the fall in excise revenue, that this is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a change in tax procedures and a brief uncertainty in the textile industry, is not entirely convincing. If the Government's fiscal deficit has stayed under control in the first quarter, it is because a decline in interest payments following a dip in interest rates has brought spending down. The subsidy bill, always a problem, could however rise disconcertingly as the Government will be buying more grain and at higher prices. In a good agricultural year, farmers always tend to sell more grain to the state agencies, and procurement prices were raised recently.
There is no doubt that agricultural production will increase significantly this year in both the kharif and rabi seasons. Since the net output of the agriculture sector registered a negative growth of over 3 per cent in 2002–03, the present recovery will push up the growth rate of the economy in 2003–04. Higher incomes in agriculture will boost the demand for industrial products and services, contributing in the process to an all–round acceleration in growth. Revenue from direct and indirect taxes too should increase. All these developments provide the Government the opportunity to take initiatives that will help the economy move to a higher growth path. There are, however, no signs of such action by the Government. For instance, the Centre has done little about its proposed public–private partnership for boosting public investment in infrastructure, the main growth initiative announced in the Union budget. The Government has introduced cash management measures in some Ministries and retired a part of the expensive debt with banks, as promised in the budget. But these are only housekeeping measures. They will do nothing to provide a new impetus to growth.

It can be inferred from the passage that the _________________.

Read the passage and answer the following question:

The Fiscal Year 2003–04 promises to be a good one for the Indian economy ending five years of deceleration. However, is it going to be a recovery facilitated by the excellent monsoon of 2003 or by a substantial jump in private and public investment? The answer will not be found in the first Quarterly Statement on the Economy and Budget, which the Union Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh, has tabled in Parliament. It is perhaps unfair to expect the Finance Ministry report, the first quarterly review mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility and Management Act, to forecast the shape of the economic recovery in 2003–04. It is, however, important to look more closely at the broad picture of optimism painted in the review of the economy in April–June 2003.
The Center’s gross tax revenue grew by 14 per cent in the first quarter. This was slower than the growth in the corresponding period of 2002–03, but better than the 13.3 per cent increase budgeted for all of 2003–04. Direct tax collections have been better than expected and customs duty receipts are on target. What should be cause for worry is the decline by 16.6 per cent in collections from excise duty, which is still the single largest source of tax revenue. This trend is not consistent with the 5 per cent growth in industrial production in the first two months of the year. The Government's explanation for the fall in excise revenue, that this is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a change in tax procedures and a brief uncertainty in the textile industry, is not entirely convincing. If the Government's fiscal deficit has stayed under control in the first quarter, it is because a decline in interest payments following a dip in interest rates has brought spending down. The subsidy bill, always a problem, could however rise disconcertingly as the Government will be buying more grain and at higher prices. In a good agricultural year, farmers always tend to sell more grain to the state agencies, and procurement prices were raised recently.
There is no doubt that agricultural production will increase significantly this year in both the kharif and rabi seasons. Since the net output of the agriculture sector registered a negative growth of over 3 per cent in 2002–03, the present recovery will push up the growth rate of the economy in 2003–04. Higher incomes in agriculture will boost the demand for industrial products and services, contributing in the process to an all–round acceleration in growth. Revenue from direct and indirect taxes too should increase. All these developments provide the Government the opportunity to take initiatives that will help the economy move to a higher growth path. There are, however, no signs of such action by the Government. For instance, the Centre has done little about its proposed public–private partnership for boosting public investment in infrastructure, the main growth initiative announced in the Union budget. The Government has introduced cash management measures in some Ministries and retired a part of the expensive debt with banks, as promised in the budget. But these are only housekeeping measures. They will do nothing to provide a new impetus to growth.