Directions: Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

RIGGED

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

Which among the following can be derived from the passage? I. Crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides were primarily responsible for the suicides committed by the farmers. II. The farmers who shifted from food crops to cash crops were the only ones who were not affected. III. A low germination rate of seed added to the woes of the farmers.

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

Directions: Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

SPURIOUS

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

Directions: Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

GERMINATION

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

The author is LEAST likely to agree with the fact that

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

RELENTLESS

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

AVOWED

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

The onset of economic liberalisation in India

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

VOLATILE

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

LUCRATIVE

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

The major source of income from the real estate market is

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

HORRENDOUS

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

The author is definitely making a case for

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Directions: Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

PHENOMENAL

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

Whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that real estate has been the most profitable INVESTMENT in India over the last 30 years. It has consistently been the most lucrative business. In spite of all our socialist proclamations all these years, the truth is that unearned income from property, particularly capital gains from the appreciation of property has outperformed income from any other source.

Property prices only have gone one way up. Year after year, the rise is relentless. Each time one feels that the limit must have been reached, property prices only rise further. The result is that owning one's own home is a distant dream for most middle class Indians. This phenomenon is not only confined to the big metro cities, but inordinate price rises have swept through most smaller towns too.

The rise is so phenomenal and the damage to the psyche so great, that nobody believes that prices will ever come down. Even in this day and age of free market economics, nobody believes that supply can ever exceed demand to bring prices down. Few within the country understand what is happening to the real estate market, and visitors from overseas, describe the situation as just mad.

The only reason for this horrendous state of affairs is the complete bungling by both the central government and the state governments. Though the land is a state subject under the Constitution, at the behest of the majority of states, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was passed by Mrs. Gandhi almost 20 years ago. This compounded the problem of rising urban land prices due to excessively rigid rent control laws by state governments.

The result is that it is virtually impossible to get tenants, protected by the Rent Control Acts, to vacate premises. Therefore transactions in land are virtually frozen. When transactions in lands do take place, several governmental permissions are needed, particularly under the Urban Land Ceiling Act - at a huge cost in terms of money (usually illegal) and time. Obviously if there is not enough supply or very little supply, then even with a little demand, prices must go up inordinately. These very simple laws of supply and demand are taught to the students of economics in their very first lesson. The whole liberalisation process is based on the avowed philosophy of doing away with unnecessary controls, which do not work and only distort the markets. It has worked wonders with the economy. But the one area in which there is no sign of liberalisation is real estate. Clearly, there can be no excuses for this. If liberalisation as a policy is sound, then there is no reason why it should not work in the real estate markets too. The truth is that worldwide, including in major cities like London and New York, once rent control was abolished, there were major property booms which led to an over supply and a crash in prices. Surely the same thing can and must happen in Bombay and Delhi too.

The only excuse made for not abolishing controls in the field 'of real estate', is that it may not be ‘politically acceptable’. The question must be asked ‘politically acceptable’ to whom? It is only the politicians who would lose a major source of revenue. It is high time that a vociferous demand is raised and politicians are forcefully told that it is the astronomical real estate prices that are not politically acceptable either.

Which of the following can be derived from the passage?

Directions: Read the passage below and answer the question that follows:

The farmer often goes by the dealer's advice on what products to buy. "The dealer has emerged as an 'expert', because the others have gone,” says Malla Reddy. The APRS leader points to "over 2,800 vacancies in the Department of Agriculture.” Many farmer suicides in the State have been largely debt driven which makes the seed dealer's role more of a problem. Some of those who took their lives did so because of both huge debts and crop failures due to spurious seeds and pesticides. But there is little punishment for those selling fake seeds. The matter gets more complex given the clout the seed dealers have gained and the alarming rise in the cost of inputs they control. Per acre costs have exploded since 1996.

Pesticide, ammonia phosphate, zinc – all these have more than doubled in cost. A farmer might buy most of these inputs from the same dealer. Other expenses, too, have risen. Tractors cost a lot more than manual work did. Those who left food crops to experiment with cash crops in this period pay even more. The 24 percent interest that seed dealers tag on makes the burden worse. With seed companies hawking a "germination rate" of only 65 percent, farmers get even less value for money. Input costs are higher in coastal regions where, too, suicides have been on the rise. The use of high cost items such as fertilizers and pesticides is greatest in Andhra Pradesh. The All–India average for fertilizer consumption per hectare was 88 kg in 2001. In Andhra Pradesh it was almost 180 kg. It is even greater in the coastal regions. "Over use of fertilizer is a huge problem," says Malla Reddy of the APRS.

"At the same time," he says "tenant farmers faced massive increases in the cost of leasing land." Such tenants make up nearly 60 percent of all farmers in many parts of the State, more so in the coastal region. From the late 1990s, they were asked by the landlords to pay (as lease cost) between 21 and 25 bags of paddy an acre each year. This, when their output was barely 30 bags an acre. So the tenant farmer is left with five bags of paddy and another three of black gram that he sows after paddy. And that is in a good year!" The huge use of fertilizer has not helped much." "But at the moment when input costs were so high and rewards so poor," says the Nalgonda ex–MLA, Narasimha Reddy, "the banks stopped giving the farmer any credit and output prices were crashing due to rigged and volatile markets. There was also zero investment in agriculture. This crisis was man–made." That was how the suicides began. "Add drought and crop failure to that," says Reddy, "and the suicides only got worse."