According to the passage, who has imposed the ‘burden of labour’ on us?

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

As per the passage, which of the following items of expenditure involved in fertilizer pricing is not mentioned in the list of those which can be reduced?

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

Natural gas is the most efficient feedstock for production of urea. Energy consumption as well as the total cost of production of fertilizers is the least in gas–based plants as compared to the plants of comparable vintage based on naphtha, fuel oil and coal. At present, only 43.4 per cent of the capacity for producing nitrogen is based on natural gas.
It is, therefore, imperative that sufficient allocation of natural gas should be ensured for production of nitrogenous fertilizers. It has been reported that a lot of difficulties are being experienced by the fertilizer industry in getting allocation of gas for new projects which are about ten in number and even for expansion of existing projects.

The committee notes that the demand for gas by sectors other than fertilizer is mainly for energy, whereas fertilizer uses gas for both chemical and energy. In order to produce fertilizer at the least cost and to make the most productive use of gas, the Committee recommends that timely and sufficient allocation of gas on top priority basis be made to fertilizer projects.

One item of expenditure which can be considerably reduced by fertilizer units is advertisement through various media. Expenditure incurred by 22 units on advertisements amounted to as much as Rs. 2731 crores in 1988–89 and Rs. 2251 crores in 1989–90. As against this the expenditure incurred by those units for encouraging farmers to use fertilizers by distributing free samples, carrying out soil testing, etc. was a meagre amount of Rs. 298 crores and Rs. 417 crores in 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

In the committee's view, the huge expenditure on advertisements through TV, etc., for promoting an individual company's products is largely avoidable as that amount correspondingly adds to fertilizer subsidy. The committee would recommend that fertilizer units should instead spend more on 'demonstration and sample' which is an effective and productive way of promoting fertilizer consumption.

Natural gas is the main feedstock for fertilizer industry, the price of natural gas supplied to fertilizer industry does not seem to reflect its true cost. The committee notes that about 22 percent of the total gas produced is flared by ONGC for want of facilities and the cost of gas so flared during the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 alone amounted to as much as nearly Rs. 1800 crores. The committee notes that for determining the consumer prices of natural gas the cost of imported furnace oil is taken as the basis which has no relation to the actual cost of production. Similarly the producer price of gas is reportedly based on the cost of production of gas from South Bassein field. This does not take into account the weighted average of the cost of gas from other sources including the cost of gas flared. In view of these facts, the committee recommends that the price should be fixed on a rational calculation of production cost based on total production.

The royalty paid by fertilizer industry on natural gas during 1990–91 amounted to nearly Rs. 100 crores out of which the share of the Central government was about Rs. 89 crore. The committee desires that with a view to bringing down the subsidy burden on nitrogenous fertilizer the Central royalty on natural gas may be done away with. The transportation charges for gas sold along the HBJ pipeline appears to be on the higher side. As per the information furnished by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas, the cost of transportation of 1000 cu. mt gas for 1000 kms works out to Rs. 440. Against this, the rate charged is Rs. 875 per 1000 cu. mt, irrespective of distance.

The committee desires the government to examine this aspect and the transportation charges for gas sold to fertilizer units along the HBJ pipeline should be reviewed and re-fixed on reasonable and realistic bases. The committee also desires that in order to bring down the cost of transportation of gas along the HBJ pipelines, depreciation for HBJ pipelines may be raised to 25 years instead of ten years.

The author acknowledges that there are innumerable

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

Based on what is mentioned in the passage, which of the following factors does not have a bearing on fertilizer subsidies?

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

Natural gas is the most efficient feedstock for production of urea. Energy consumption as well as the total cost of production of fertilizers is the least in gas–based plants as compared to the plants of comparable vintage based on naphtha, fuel oil and coal. At present, only 43.4 per cent of the capacity for producing nitrogen is based on natural gas.
It is, therefore, imperative that sufficient allocation of natural gas should be ensured for production of nitrogenous fertilizers. It has been reported that a lot of difficulties are being experienced by the fertilizer industry in getting allocation of gas for new projects which are about ten in number and even for expansion of existing projects.

The committee notes that the demand for gas by sectors other than fertilizer is mainly for energy, whereas fertilizer uses gas for both chemical and energy. In order to produce fertilizer at the least cost and to make the most productive use of gas, the Committee recommends that timely and sufficient allocation of gas on top priority basis be made to fertilizer projects.

One item of expenditure which can be considerably reduced by fertilizer units is advertisement through various media. Expenditure incurred by 22 units on advertisements amounted to as much as Rs. 2731 crores in 1988–89 and Rs. 2251 crores in 1989–90. As against this the expenditure incurred by those units for encouraging farmers to use fertilizers by distributing free samples, carrying out soil testing, etc. was a meagre amount of Rs. 298 crores and Rs. 417 crores in 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

In the committee's view, the huge expenditure on advertisements through TV, etc., for promoting an individual company's products is largely avoidable as that amount correspondingly adds to fertilizer subsidy. The committee would recommend that fertilizer units should instead spend more on 'demonstration and sample' which is an effective and productive way of promoting fertilizer consumption.

Natural gas is the main feedstock for fertilizer industry, the price of natural gas supplied to fertilizer industry does not seem to reflect its true cost. The committee notes that about 22 percent of the total gas produced is flared by ONGC for want of facilities and the cost of gas so flared during the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 alone amounted to as much as nearly Rs. 1800 crores. The committee notes that for determining the consumer prices of natural gas the cost of imported furnace oil is taken as the basis which has no relation to the actual cost of production. Similarly the producer price of gas is reportedly based on the cost of production of gas from South Bassein field. This does not take into account the weighted average of the cost of gas from other sources including the cost of gas flared. In view of these facts, the committee recommends that the price should be fixed on a rational calculation of production cost based on total production.

The royalty paid by fertilizer industry on natural gas during 1990–91 amounted to nearly Rs. 100 crores out of which the share of the Central government was about Rs. 89 crore. The committee desires that with a view to bringing down the subsidy burden on nitrogenous fertilizer the Central royalty on natural gas may be done away with. The transportation charges for gas sold along the HBJ pipeline appears to be on the higher side. As per the information furnished by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas, the cost of transportation of 1000 cu. mt gas for 1000 kms works out to Rs. 440. Against this, the rate charged is Rs. 875 per 1000 cu. mt, irrespective of distance.

The committee desires the government to examine this aspect and the transportation charges for gas sold to fertilizer units along the HBJ pipeline should be reviewed and re-fixed on reasonable and realistic bases. The committee also desires that in order to bring down the cost of transportation of gas along the HBJ pipelines, depreciation for HBJ pipelines may be raised to 25 years instead of ten years.

According to the committee, the cost of transportation of gas along the HBJ pipelines should be reduced by

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

Natural gas is the most efficient feedstock for production of urea. Energy consumption as well as the total cost of production of fertilizers is the least in gas–based plants as compared to the plants of comparable vintage based on naphtha, fuel oil and coal. At present, only 43.4 per cent of the capacity for producing nitrogen is based on natural gas.
It is, therefore, imperative that sufficient allocation of natural gas should be ensured for production of nitrogenous fertilizers. It has been reported that a lot of difficulties are being experienced by the fertilizer industry in getting allocation of gas for new projects which are about ten in number and even for expansion of existing projects.

The committee notes that the demand for gas by sectors other than fertilizer is mainly for energy, whereas fertilizer uses gas for both chemical and energy. In order to produce fertilizer at the least cost and to make the most productive use of gas, the Committee recommends that timely and sufficient allocation of gas on top priority basis be made to fertilizer projects.

One item of expenditure which can be considerably reduced by fertilizer units is advertisement through various media. Expenditure incurred by 22 units on advertisements amounted to as much as Rs. 2731 crores in 1988–89 and Rs. 2251 crores in 1989–90. As against this the expenditure incurred by those units for encouraging farmers to use fertilizers by distributing free samples, carrying out soil testing, etc. was a meagre amount of Rs. 298 crores and Rs. 417 crores in 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

In the committee's view, the huge expenditure on advertisements through TV, etc., for promoting an individual company's products is largely avoidable as that amount correspondingly adds to fertilizer subsidy. The committee would recommend that fertilizer units should instead spend more on 'demonstration and sample' which is an effective and productive way of promoting fertilizer consumption.

Natural gas is the main feedstock for fertilizer industry, the price of natural gas supplied to fertilizer industry does not seem to reflect its true cost. The committee notes that about 22 percent of the total gas produced is flared by ONGC for want of facilities and the cost of gas so flared during the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 alone amounted to as much as nearly Rs. 1800 crores. The committee notes that for determining the consumer prices of natural gas the cost of imported furnace oil is taken as the basis which has no relation to the actual cost of production. Similarly the producer price of gas is reportedly based on the cost of production of gas from South Bassein field. This does not take into account the weighted average of the cost of gas from other sources including the cost of gas flared. In view of these facts, the committee recommends that the price should be fixed on a rational calculation of production cost based on total production.

The royalty paid by fertilizer industry on natural gas during 1990–91 amounted to nearly Rs. 100 crores out of which the share of the Central government was about Rs. 89 crore. The committee desires that with a view to bringing down the subsidy burden on nitrogenous fertilizer the Central royalty on natural gas may be done away with. The transportation charges for gas sold along the HBJ pipeline appears to be on the higher side. As per the information furnished by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas, the cost of transportation of 1000 cu. mt gas for 1000 kms works out to Rs. 440. Against this, the rate charged is Rs. 875 per 1000 cu. mt, irrespective of distance.

The committee desires the government to examine this aspect and the transportation charges for gas sold to fertilizer units along the HBJ pipeline should be reviewed and re-fixed on reasonable and realistic bases. The committee also desires that in order to bring down the cost of transportation of gas along the HBJ pipelines, depreciation for HBJ pipelines may be raised to 25 years instead of ten years.

On the basis of the passage, it can be inferred that the writer is a

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

From the passage, we can infer that the total value of all natural gas produced by ONGC in two years is

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

Natural gas is the most efficient feedstock for production of urea. Energy consumption as well as the total cost of production of fertilizers is the least in gas–based plants as compared to the plants of comparable vintage based on naphtha, fuel oil and coal. At present, only 43.4 per cent of the capacity for producing nitrogen is based on natural gas.
It is, therefore, imperative that sufficient allocation of natural gas should be ensured for production of nitrogenous fertilizers. It has been reported that a lot of difficulties are being experienced by the fertilizer industry in getting allocation of gas for new projects which are about ten in number and even for expansion of existing projects.

The committee notes that the demand for gas by sectors other than fertilizer is mainly for energy, whereas fertilizer uses gas for both chemical and energy. In order to produce fertilizer at the least cost and to make the most productive use of gas, the Committee recommends that timely and sufficient allocation of gas on top priority basis be made to fertilizer projects.

One item of expenditure which can be considerably reduced by fertilizer units is advertisement through various media. Expenditure incurred by 22 units on advertisements amounted to as much as Rs. 2731 crores in 1988–89 and Rs. 2251 crores in 1989–90. As against this the expenditure incurred by those units for encouraging farmers to use fertilizers by distributing free samples, carrying out soil testing, etc. was a meagre amount of Rs. 298 crores and Rs. 417 crores in 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

In the committee's view, the huge expenditure on advertisements through TV, etc., for promoting an individual company's products is largely avoidable as that amount correspondingly adds to fertilizer subsidy. The committee would recommend that fertilizer units should instead spend more on 'demonstration and sample' which is an effective and productive way of promoting fertilizer consumption.

Natural gas is the main feedstock for fertilizer industry, the price of natural gas supplied to fertilizer industry does not seem to reflect its true cost. The committee notes that about 22 percent of the total gas produced is flared by ONGC for want of facilities and the cost of gas so flared during the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 alone amounted to as much as nearly Rs. 1800 crores. The committee notes that for determining the consumer prices of natural gas the cost of imported furnace oil is taken as the basis which has no relation to the actual cost of production. Similarly the producer price of gas is reportedly based on the cost of production of gas from South Bassein field. This does not take into account the weighted average of the cost of gas from other sources including the cost of gas flared. In view of these facts, the committee recommends that the price should be fixed on a rational calculation of production cost based on total production.

The royalty paid by fertilizer industry on natural gas during 1990–91 amounted to nearly Rs. 100 crores out of which the share of the Central government was about Rs. 89 crore. The committee desires that with a view to bringing down the subsidy burden on nitrogenous fertilizer the Central royalty on natural gas may be done away with. The transportation charges for gas sold along the HBJ pipeline appears to be on the higher side. As per the information furnished by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas, the cost of transportation of 1000 cu. mt gas for 1000 kms works out to Rs. 440. Against this, the rate charged is Rs. 875 per 1000 cu. mt, irrespective of distance.

The committee desires the government to examine this aspect and the transportation charges for gas sold to fertilizer units along the HBJ pipeline should be reviewed and re-fixed on reasonable and realistic bases. The committee also desires that in order to bring down the cost of transportation of gas along the HBJ pipelines, depreciation for HBJ pipelines may be raised to 25 years instead of ten years.

What is the main idea of the passage?

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

THE DECADES–OLD proposal to link all of India's major rivers with one another was revived with much fanfare last year. Most political parties welcomed it then as a solution to the country's drinking water and irrigation problems. But it has not taken long for the proposal to come face to face with the hard reality of planning what will be the largest project ever taken up in India. A number of States, from Punjab in the north to Kerala in the south, have expressed their opposition to a transfer of river waters from their territory to other States. The latest example is the considerable anxiety in Kerala about including a link between the Pampa and the Achankovil (flowing through Kerala) and the Vaippar (in Tamil Nadu) in the proposed national river grid. This is only one of many reasons why the ambitious, many would say unrealistic. Schedules for execution of the project have already been thrown out of gear.

The high–level task force on the project, constituted in December 2002, was expected to prepare the schedule for completion of feasibility studies and estimate the cost of the project by the end of April this year. It was to then come up in June with the options for funding the project. It was also expected to convene a meeting in May/June of State Chief Ministers and obtain their agreement and cooperation. None of these deadlines has been  met and there is no  indication that these  events will take place in the near future. This is not surprising, for while the interlinking proposal has been spoken about for decades, all the complex engineering, economic, environmental and social issues involved in the project have never been carefully studied. It is, therefore, not an easy task to draw up in a few months even the time lines for implementation. It will also be impossible to complete within a decade (as decreed by the Supreme Court) execution of a project that at first approximation is estimated to cost Rs. 5,60,000 crores, which is twice the size of India's gross domestic product at present. In fact, the one Government committee that did examine aspects of the proposal to some extent, the National Commission for an Integrated Water Resources Development Plan, was in 1999 ambivalent about the benefits of interlinking the country's rivers.

The drought of 2002 was the context in which the proposal to build a grid connecting India's rivers was revived. Before another drought leads to another round of active interest in the project, it is necessary to come up with answers to two broad sets of questions. The first question is, what will be the total costs and benefits of a river grid project in economic, environmental and social terms. The second will be, what are the different options to meet the future requirements of water and is the interlinking proposal the best among them. Answers to these questions will have to address issues in agricultural technology, patterns of water use, extraction of ground and surface water resources, efficiency in consumption of water in crop cultivation, resource mobilization, human displacement and changes in the environment. A plan on such a scale and of such complexity as the proposal to link the country's rivers can be taken up only after a range of such substa ntive issues are analyzed threadbare.

The main thrust of the passage may be said to be the

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

By giving the example of the island and the coconuts in the passage, the author wants

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

Which of the following is a solution given by the author for the betterment of labour?

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

Which of the following statements would the author probably agree with?

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

Which of the following has not been mentioned as a helpful entity?

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

Before there can be any wealth to divide up, there must be labour at work. There can be no loaves without farmers and bakers. There are a few little islands thousands of miles away where men and women can lie basking in the sun and live on the coconuts the monkeys throw down to them. But for us there is no such possibility. Without incessant daily labour we should starve. If anyone is idle, someone else must be working for both or there would be nothing for either of them to eat. That was why St Paul said ‘If a man will not work neither shall he eat.' The burden of labour is imposed on us by nature, and has to be divided up and so is the wealth produced by it.

But the two divisions need not correspond to one another. One person has to produce much more than enough to feed him/her. Otherwise the young children could not be fed; and the old people who are past work would starve. Many a woman with nothing to help her but her two hands has brought up a family on her own earnings, and kept her aged parents into the bargain, besides making rent for a landlord as well. And with the help of water power, steam power, electric power, and modern machinery, labour can be so organised that one woman can turn out what more than a thousand women could turn out 150 years ago.

This saving of labour by harnessing machines to natural forces, like wind and water and the heat latent in coal, produces leisure, which also has to be divided up. If one person's labour for ten hours can support ten persons for a day, the ten can arrange in several different ways. They can put the ten hours work on one person and let the other nine have all the leisure as well as free rations. Or they can each do one hour's work a day and each of them will have nine hours leisure. Or they can have anything between these extremes. They can also arrange that three of them shall work ten hours a day each producing enough for thirty people, so that the other seven will not only have nothing to do, but will be able to eat enough for fourteen and to keep thirteen servants to wait on them and keep the three up to their work into the bargain.

Another possible arrangement would be that they should all work much longer every day than was necessary to keep them, on condition that they were not required to work until they were fully grown and well educated, and were allowed to stop working and amuse themselves for the rest of their lives when they were fifty. Scores of different arrangements are possible between out-and-out slavery and an equitable division of labour, leisure, and wealth. Slavery, Serfdom, Feudalism. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are all at bottom different arrangements of this division. Revolutionary history is the history of the effects of a continual struggle by persons and classes to alter the arrangement in their own favour. But for the moment we had better stick to the question of dividing-up the income the labour produces; for the utmost difference you can make between one person and another in respect of their labour or leisure is as nothing compared to the enormous difference you can make in their incomes by modern methods and machines. You cannot put more than 24 hours into a rich man’s day; but you can put 24 million pounds into his pocket without asking him to lift his little finger for it.

Compared to 1988–89, advertising costs for fertilizers in 1989–90 have

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

Natural gas is the most efficient feedstock for production of urea. Energy consumption as well as the total cost of production of fertilizers is the least in gas–based plants as compared to the plants of comparable vintage based on naphtha, fuel oil and coal. At present, only 43.4 per cent of the capacity for producing nitrogen is based on natural gas.
It is, therefore, imperative that sufficient allocation of natural gas should be ensured for production of nitrogenous fertilizers. It has been reported that a lot of difficulties are being experienced by the fertilizer industry in getting allocation of gas for new projects which are about ten in number and even for expansion of existing projects.

The committee notes that the demand for gas by sectors other than fertilizer is mainly for energy, whereas fertilizer uses gas for both chemical and energy. In order to produce fertilizer at the least cost and to make the most productive use of gas, the Committee recommends that timely and sufficient allocation of gas on top priority basis be made to fertilizer projects.

One item of expenditure which can be considerably reduced by fertilizer units is advertisement through various media. Expenditure incurred by 22 units on advertisements amounted to as much as Rs. 2731 crores in 1988–89 and Rs. 2251 crores in 1989–90. As against this the expenditure incurred by those units for encouraging farmers to use fertilizers by distributing free samples, carrying out soil testing, etc. was a meagre amount of Rs. 298 crores and Rs. 417 crores in 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

In the committee's view, the huge expenditure on advertisements through TV, etc., for promoting an individual company's products is largely avoidable as that amount correspondingly adds to fertilizer subsidy. The committee would recommend that fertilizer units should instead spend more on 'demonstration and sample' which is an effective and productive way of promoting fertilizer consumption.

Natural gas is the main feedstock for fertilizer industry, the price of natural gas supplied to fertilizer industry does not seem to reflect its true cost. The committee notes that about 22 percent of the total gas produced is flared by ONGC for want of facilities and the cost of gas so flared during the two years 1989–90 and 1990–91 alone amounted to as much as nearly Rs. 1800 crores. The committee notes that for determining the consumer prices of natural gas the cost of imported furnace oil is taken as the basis which has no relation to the actual cost of production. Similarly the producer price of gas is reportedly based on the cost of production of gas from South Bassein field. This does not take into account the weighted average of the cost of gas from other sources including the cost of gas flared. In view of these facts, the committee recommends that the price should be fixed on a rational calculation of production cost based on total production.

The royalty paid by fertilizer industry on natural gas during 1990–91 amounted to nearly Rs. 100 crores out of which the share of the Central government was about Rs. 89 crore. The committee desires that with a view to bringing down the subsidy burden on nitrogenous fertilizer the Central royalty on natural gas may be done away with. The transportation charges for gas sold along the HBJ pipeline appears to be on the higher side. As per the information furnished by the ministry of petroleum and natural gas, the cost of transportation of 1000 cu. mt gas for 1000 kms works out to Rs. 440. Against this, the rate charged is Rs. 875 per 1000 cu. mt, irrespective of distance.

The committee desires the government to examine this aspect and the transportation charges for gas sold to fertilizer units along the HBJ pipeline should be reviewed and re-fixed on reasonable and realistic bases. The committee also desires that in order to bring down the cost of transportation of gas along the HBJ pipelines, depreciation for HBJ pipelines may be raised to 25 years instead of ten years.

Which among the following can be inferred from the passage?

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

THE DECADES–OLD proposal to link all of India's major rivers with one another was revived with much fanfare last year. Most political parties welcomed it then as a solution to the country's drinking water and irrigation problems. But it has not taken long for the proposal to come face to face with the hard reality of planning what will be the largest project ever taken up in India. A number of States, from Punjab in the north to Kerala in the south, have expressed their opposition to a transfer of river waters from their territory to other States. The latest example is the considerable anxiety in Kerala about including a link between the Pampa and the Achankovil (flowing through Kerala) and the Vaippar (in Tamil Nadu) in the proposed national river grid. This is only one of many reasons why the ambitious, many would say unrealistic. Schedules for execution of the project have already been thrown out of gear.

The high–level task force on the project, constituted in December 2002, was expected to prepare the schedule for completion of feasibility studies and estimate the cost of the project by the end of April this year. It was to then come up in June with the options for funding the project. It was also expected to convene a meeting in May/June of State Chief Ministers and obtain their agreement and cooperation. None of these deadlines has been  met and there is no  indication that these  events will take place in the near future. This is not surprising, for while the interlinking proposal has been spoken about for decades, all the complex engineering, economic, environmental and social issues involved in the project have never been carefully studied. It is, therefore, not an easy task to draw up in a few months even the time lines for implementation. It will also be impossible to complete within a decade (as decreed by the Supreme Court) execution of a project that at first approximation is estimated to cost Rs. 5,60,000 crores, which is twice the size of India's gross domestic product at present. In fact, the one Government committee that did examine aspects of the proposal to some extent, the National Commission for an Integrated Water Resources Development Plan, was in 1999 ambivalent about the benefits of interlinking the country's rivers.

The drought of 2002 was the context in which the proposal to build a grid connecting India's rivers was revived. Before another drought leads to another round of active interest in the project, it is necessary to come up with answers to two broad sets of questions. The first question is, what will be the total costs and benefits of a river grid project in economic, environmental and social terms. The second will be, what are the different options to meet the future requirements of water and is the interlinking proposal the best among them. Answers to these questions will have to address issues in agricultural technology, patterns of water use, extraction of ground and surface water resources, efficiency in consumption of water in crop cultivation, resource mobilization, human displacement and changes in the environment. A plan on such a scale and of such complexity as the proposal to link the country's rivers can be taken up only after a range of such substa ntive issues are analyzed threadbare.