What according to the passage is the crux of the matter?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Without getting carried away by the wide-eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what’s more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot-free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water-tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in-depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub-prime mortgage quicksand but a spin-off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub-prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process. The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip-off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant. The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don’t have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something’s got to give in here.

The author's stance on the possibility of financial institutions being found guilty can best be described as

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Without getting carried away by the wide-eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what’s more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot-free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water-tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in-depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub-prime mortgage quicksand but a spin-off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub-prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process. The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip-off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant. The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don’t have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something’s got to give in here.

All of the following, in context of the passage, are true except:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Without getting carried away by the wide-eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what’s more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot-free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water-tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in-depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub-prime mortgage quicksand but a spin-off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub-prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process. The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip-off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant. The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don’t have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something’s got to give in here.

What according to the passage is not the reason why companies spend so much on advertising?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The target audience is likely to switch channels in an attempt to whittle away the time while waiting for their favorite program to resume. Even if the ad does reach the desired target audience, the message conveyed comes and departs mostly unnoticed and many people would have trouble recalling an ad that they had seen just two minutes ago. Companies however continue to spend billions of dollars every year in an effort to attract buyers. Instead of paying massive endorsement fees to celebrities to promote a brand and spending a pretty penny on conceptualizing and creating ads, would it not make more sense for the behemoth corporations to save that money and pass on a large share back to the consumers as loyalty benefits? A satisfied user is often the best publicity and companies can simply divide the amount of money they are going to spend on publicity of a product by the expected number of units they are going to sell in that year and share the average expected per unit savings with the consumers. Even if the companies decide to keep a substantial portion of money saved from advertising for themselves and directly pass on the rest to consumers as an across the board price cutback, it can help the consumers to buy more for less in these times of tight liquidity.
Companies keep spending so much money on advertising because they realize that the subconscious mind is working even when the conscious mind tunes out the message. Once the subconscious learns something, that information gets stored in the vast labyrinths of the neural passages that are present in our brains and like a burr beneath the saddle of a horse, the message will keep irritating our subconscious, egging us on to buy the proffered product or service. Also, with the customer being constantly bombarded by inducements for buying, a vacillating mind might just get seduced into pulling out the credit card. Another reason could be that the advertisers and advertising agencies are relying on a collective message that they send out to teeming humanity of equating material possessions with happiness. Another startling input could be that the promoter knows that only ten percent of advertising converts into a sale and therefore the buyers end up paying for the message that the remaining 90% did not heed. In this cat and mouse game of one trying to tempt another into buying, perhaps it is the advertising agency that has the last laugh - their product is selling even if the advertiser’s is not and the fall guy for the entire con game is the consumer who is paying for it.

With reference to the passage, which of the following would be true? I. The buyer is fickle and repeated advertisement is the only way to draw his attention. II. Unavailability of spare funds requires extra effort to make the customer loosen his purse strings. III. More and more buyers feel that joy and pleasure and possessions are two sides of a coin.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The target audience is likely to switch channels in an attempt to whittle away the time while waiting for their favorite program to resume. Even if the ad does reach the desired target audience, the message conveyed comes and departs mostly unnoticed and many people would have trouble recalling an ad that they had seen just two minutes ago. Companies however continue to spend billions of dollars every year in an effort to attract buyers. Instead of paying massive endorsement fees to celebrities to promote a brand and spending a pretty penny on conceptualizing and creating ads, would it not make more sense for the behemoth corporations to save that money and pass on a large share back to the consumers as loyalty benefits? A satisfied user is often the best publicity and companies can simply divide the amount of money they are going to spend on publicity of a product by the expected number of units they are going to sell in that year and share the average expected per unit savings with the consumers. Even if the companies decide to keep a substantial portion of money saved from advertising for themselves and directly pass on the rest to consumers as an across the board price cutback, it can help the consumers to buy more for less in these times of tight liquidity.
Companies keep spending so much money on advertising because they realize that the subconscious mind is working even when the conscious mind tunes out the message. Once the subconscious learns something, that information gets stored in the vast labyrinths of the neural passages that are present in our brains and like a burr beneath the saddle of a horse, the message will keep irritating our subconscious, egging us on to buy the proffered product or service. Also, with the customer being constantly bombarded by inducements for buying, a vacillating mind might just get seduced into pulling out the credit card. Another reason could be that the advertisers and advertising agencies are relying on a collective message that they send out to teeming humanity of equating material possessions with happiness. Another startling input could be that the promoter knows that only ten percent of advertising converts into a sale and therefore the buyers end up paying for the message that the remaining 90% did not heed. In this cat and mouse game of one trying to tempt another into buying, perhaps it is the advertising agency that has the last laugh - their product is selling even if the advertiser’s is not and the fall guy for the entire con game is the consumer who is paying for it.

What is the relation between the two paragraphs of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
The target audience is likely to switch channels in an attempt to whittle away the time while waiting for their favorite program to resume. Even if the ad does reach the desired target audience, the message conveyed comes and departs mostly unnoticed and many people would have trouble recalling an ad that they had seen just two minutes ago. Companies however continue to spend billions of dollars every year in an effort to attract buyers. Instead of paying massive endorsement fees to celebrities to promote a brand and spending a pretty penny on conceptualizing and creating ads, would it not make more sense for the behemoth corporations to save that money and pass on a large share back to the consumers as loyalty benefits? A satisfied user is often the best publicity and companies can simply divide the amount of money they are going to spend on publicity of a product by the expected number of units they are going to sell in that year and share the average expected per unit savings with the consumers. Even if the companies decide to keep a substantial portion of money saved from advertising for themselves and directly pass on the rest to consumers as an across the board price cutback, it can help the consumers to buy more for less in these times of tight liquidity.
Companies keep spending so much money on advertising because they realize that the subconscious mind is working even when the conscious mind tunes out the message. Once the subconscious learns something, that information gets stored in the vast labyrinths of the neural passages that are present in our brains and like a burr beneath the saddle of a horse, the message will keep irritating our subconscious, egging us on to buy the proffered product or service. Also, with the customer being constantly bombarded by inducements for buying, a vacillating mind might just get seduced into pulling out the credit card. Another reason could be that the advertisers and advertising agencies are relying on a collective message that they send out to teeming humanity of equating material possessions with happiness. Another startling input could be that the promoter knows that only ten percent of advertising converts into a sale and therefore the buyers end up paying for the message that the remaining 90% did not heed. In this cat and mouse game of one trying to tempt another into buying, perhaps it is the advertising agency that has the last laugh - their product is selling even if the advertiser’s is not and the fall guy for the entire con game is the consumer who is paying for it.

Which of the following situations would most discomfort a mathematician?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

The tone of the author is

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.

The point that the author is trying to make is that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and disheartened.