Directions: Read the following passages and answer the question that follow: For all its acknowledged importance, the quality of medical care in India is not well understood. Many studies of the demand for medical services identify quality as a major determinant of facility selection and use, and that such use should contribute to improvements in health status. However, quality of care is not clearly defined beyond easily observable facility characteristics such as the availability of medicines or functioning equipment. What is less well understood, but has greater relevance for both the use and outcomes of services, is the quality of the actual advice given in clinical settings. Medicine can be bought over the counter and is not specific to particular facilities or providers. But good advice from a provider with knowledge and experience is a service that patients cannot easily obtain by themselves.

According to the passage, which of the following problems that have beset medical care in India has more pertinence?

The author is most likely to agree with the idea that:

While we have forgotten much of what Gandhi ji recommended regarding the use of Satyagraha against a foreign ruler, we see instances of it, day in and day out, in support of some cause or issue a group of people advocates. And this is happening 60 years after our country has had a fully democratic system with adult franchise. Whereas Satyagraha was intended to be peaceful, today's direct action is accompanied by threats and violence.

There have also been cases of direct action directed at private individuals or groups. Such action as practised today is openly coercive. A boycott of a play thought to be anti-Hindu or of a film thought to be obscene prevents those who disagree, from attending the performance and exposes the organisers to stone-throwing and arson, and, of course, financial loss. Gandhi ji was justified in breaking the salt law as it was passed by the British and we were powerless to rescind it. If we have a bad law today, the correct remedy can never be satyagraha or civil disobedience. The proper democratic course of action would be to campaign for its repeal. Similarly, if there is some evil which is rampant, the democratic course of action is to campaign for the enforcement of the law against it or, if there is no satisfactory law, for its enactment.

The right which democracy confers is to propound a particular view point; inherent in the right is the right of its opponents to disagree. The moment the proponents of a viewpoint adopt coercive tactics, not only are they acting unlawfully, they are also denying their opponents their democratic right to disagree. Every so often the morchas are organised by groups which either want disturbances or at least do not mind them. A morchais in these cases is accompanied by shattered windows, looted shops and smashed buses and cars. A more extreme form of such agitation is a bandh.  Even a peaceful bandh results in lakhs of people losing money.

No doubt the government ought to prevent such acts. But it is unsure of public support and afraid of the violence that often erupts if morchas or bandhs are sought to be prevented. It takes the easy path of inaction. At times, it is in sympathy with the cause and actively supports the agitation.

It is high time we woke up to what these pressure groups are doing and make them stop bullying the common man. If we keep on permitting interest groups to carry on as they have been doing, a day will come when we will witness the end of both the rule of law and democracy.

The worst form of government action regarding some bandhs etc. is

1. its violent inaction
2. its non-violent inaction
3. its tacit support
4. its ineptitude

While we have forgotten much of what Gandhi ji recommended regarding the use of Satyagraha against a foreign ruler, we see instances of it, day in and day out, in support of some cause or issue a group of people advocates. And this is happening 60 years after our country has had a fully democratic system with adult franchise. Whereas Satyagraha was intended to be peaceful, today's direct action is accompanied by threats and violence.

There have also been cases of direct action directed at private individuals or groups. Such action as practised today is openly coercive. A boycott of a play thought to be anti-Hindu or of a film thought to be obscene prevents those who disagree, from attending the performance and exposes the organisers to stone-throwing and arson, and, of course, financial loss. Gandhi ji was justified in breaking the salt law as it was passed by the British and we were powerless to rescind it. If we have a bad law today, the correct remedy can never be satyagraha or civil disobedience. The proper democratic course of action would be to campaign for its repeal. Similarly, if there is some evil which is rampant, the democratic course of action is to campaign for the enforcement of the law against it or, if there is no satisfactory law, for its enactment.

The right which democracy confers is to propound a particular view point; inherent in the right is the right of its opponents to disagree. The moment the proponents of a viewpoint adopt coercive tactics, not only are they acting unlawfully, they are also denying their opponents their democratic right to disagree. Every so often the morchas are organised by groups which either want disturbances or at least do not mind them. A morchais in these cases is accompanied by shattered windows, looted shops and smashed buses and cars. A more extreme form of such agitation is a bandh.  Even a peaceful bandh results in lakhs of people losing money.

No doubt the government ought to prevent such acts. But it is unsure of public support and afraid of the violence that often erupts if morchas or bandhs are sought to be prevented. It takes the easy path of inaction. At times, it is in sympathy with the cause and actively supports the agitation.

It is high time we woke up to what these pressure groups are doing and make them stop bullying the common man. If we keep on permitting interest groups to carry on as they have been doing, a day will come when we will witness the end of both the rule of law and democracy.

Which of the following statements are true as per the passage?

1. Gandhi ji was justified in breaking the salt law as it was passed by the British and we had practically no option but to disobey.
2. Only in limited cases, if we have a bad law today, the correct remedy may be Satyagraha or Civil disobedience.
3. For the repeal of a bad law, the proper democratic course of action would be to campaign against it.
4. We have better ways to register our disagreement and protests than the morchas, the bandhs and the gheraos.

While we have forgotten much of what Gandhi ji recommended regarding the use of Satyagraha against a foreign ruler, we see instances of it, day in and day out, in support of some cause or issue a group of people advocates. And this is happening 60 years after our country has had a fully democratic system with adult franchise. Whereas Satyagraha was intended to be peaceful, today's direct action is accompanied by threats and violence.

There have also been cases of direct action directed at private individuals or groups. Such action as practised today is openly coercive. A boycott of a play thought to be anti-Hindu or of a film thought to be obscene prevents those who disagree, from attending the performance and exposes the organisers to stone-throwing and arson, and, of course, financial loss. Gandhi ji was justified in breaking the salt law as it was passed by the British and we were powerless to rescind it. If we have a bad law today, the correct remedy can never be satyagraha or civil disobedience. The proper democratic course of action would be to campaign for its repeal. Similarly, if there is some evil which is rampant, the democratic course of action is to campaign for the enforcement of the law against it or, if there is no satisfactory law, for its enactment.

The right which democracy confers is to propound a particular view point; inherent in the right is the right of its opponents to disagree. The moment the proponents of a viewpoint adopt coercive tactics, not only are they acting unlawfully, they are also denying their opponents their democratic right to disagree. Every so often the morchas are organised by groups which either want disturbances or at least do not mind them. A morchais in these cases is accompanied by shattered windows, looted shops and smashed buses and cars. A more extreme form of such agitation is a bandh.  Even a peaceful bandh results in lakhs of people losing money.

No doubt the government ought to prevent such acts. But it is unsure of public support and afraid of the violence that often erupts if morchas or bandhs are sought to be prevented. It takes the easy path of inaction. At times, it is in sympathy with the cause and actively supports the agitation.

It is high time we woke up to what these pressure groups are doing and make them stop bullying the common man. If we keep on permitting interest groups to carry on as they have been doing, a day will come when we will witness the end of both the rule of law and democracy.

Which of the following statements would the author be most likely to disagree with?

1. The overall mood of the large Indian family businesses can be summed up in one word - insecure.
2. It is safe to say that nine out of ten Indian companies indulge in corrupt practices.
3. Given the poor management practices of Indian companies, foreign companies have nothing to gain from collaboration.

Directions: Read the following passages and answer the question that follows:

PASSAGE – II

The new takeover code, looks at first glance like a typically complicated bit of Indian rulemaking. But two incendiary charges are buried within its many pages. First, SEBI wants to make takeovers, including hostile bids, much easier. Second, it wants to protect the rights of minority shareholders. For instance, any investor who takes a stake of 10% in a company must then make an offer for a further 20%, after that, any substantial increase has to be by an open offer to all the shareholders.

Just possibly, the new takeover code may cause the very large house of cards that is corporate India to collapse. It provides a way for the families that control Indian businesses to be replaced by more widely held companies or even by corporate raiders. Their immediate problem is cash. With profits harder to make, credit hard to come by, and a relatively small equity market, many family firms are being forced to weed their portfolios, retiring from investments they rushed into, in easier times.

If the government relaxes rules requiring an Indian majority holding in any company holding a telecoms licence, the foreigners may use these loans as a springboard for a full takeover. Many foreign companies now favour full control, seeing it as a chance to impose their own standards. In the early stages, a foreign firm needs a local partner’s government contacts and distribution; but once established, foreign firms complain that local partners contribute little in the way of technology or capital. One of the advisors, McKinsey & Co., a management consultancy, points out in a forthcoming report that the government now allows foreign firms to set up wholly owned investment companies that can subsequently buy Indian firms.

In the past, the big families could count on the support of India's financial institutions, which own around 40% of most big companies. However, institutions such as the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India are now trying hard to prune non-performing assets. They have told families such as the Modis that they must sort out their run-down businesses or close them (which is difficult under India's restrictive labour laws) or sell. Before, we used to be benign investors. Now families will increasingly be asked to go when they don't perform, says one senior manager. Still, no family has yet been thrown to the wolves.

The reasons for the family businesses to feel vulnerable in India today include I. the removal of the barriers to foreign investment by the government II. the shortage of cash in the economy III. the widespread allegations of corruption IV. the financial institutions moves to prune non-performing assets

Directions: Read the following passages and answer the question that follows:

PASSAGE – II

The new takeover code, looks at first glance like a typically complicated bit of Indian rulemaking. But two incendiary charges are buried within its many pages. First, SEBI wants to make takeovers, including hostile bids, much easier. Second, it wants to protect the rights of minority shareholders. For instance, any investor who takes a stake of 10% in a company must then make an offer for a further 20%, after that, any substantial increase has to be by an open offer to all the shareholders.

Just possibly, the new takeover code may cause the very large house of cards that is corporate India to collapse. It provides a way for the families that control Indian businesses to be replaced by more widely held companies or even by corporate raiders. Their immediate problem is cash. With profits harder to make, credit hard to come by, and a relatively small equity market, many family firms are being forced to weed their portfolios, retiring from investments they rushed into, in easier times.

If the government relaxes rules requiring an Indian majority holding in any company holding a telecoms licence, the foreigners may use these loans as a springboard for a full takeover. Many foreign companies now favour full control, seeing it as a chance to impose their own standards. In the early stages, a foreign firm needs a local partner’s government contacts and distribution; but once established, foreign firms complain that local partners contribute little in the way of technology or capital. One of the advisors, McKinsey & Co., a management consultancy, points out in a forthcoming report that the government now allows foreign firms to set up wholly owned investment companies that can subsequently buy Indian firms.

In the past, the big families could count on the support of India's financial institutions, which own around 40% of most big companies. However, institutions such as the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India are now trying hard to prune non-performing assets. They have told families such as the Modis that they must sort out their run-down businesses or close them (which is difficult under India's restrictive labour laws) or sell. Before, we used to be benign investors. Now families will increasingly be asked to go when they don't perform, says one senior manager. Still, no family has yet been thrown to the wolves.

Which of the following has been cited in the passage as an illustration of the changes taking place in Indian business? I. Artificial barriers to competition being created in the big industry segments. II. Dramatic changes in the government's takeover code. III. Foreign companies being allowed to have majority stakes in telecom companies. IV. Financial institutions turning from benign investors to more demanding ones.

Directions: Read the following passages and answer the question that follows:

PASSAGE – II

The new takeover code, looks at first glance like a typically complicated bit of Indian rulemaking. But two incendiary charges are buried within its many pages. First, SEBI wants to make takeovers, including hostile bids, much easier. Second, it wants to protect the rights of minority shareholders. For instance, any investor who takes a stake of 10% in a company must then make an offer for a further 20%, after that, any substantial increase has to be by an open offer to all the shareholders.

Just possibly, the new takeover code may cause the very large house of cards that is corporate India to collapse. It provides a way for the families that control Indian businesses to be replaced by more widely held companies or even by corporate raiders. Their immediate problem is cash. With profits harder to make, credit hard to come by, and a relatively small equity market, many family firms are being forced to weed their portfolios, retiring from investments they rushed into, in easier times.

If the government relaxes rules requiring an Indian majority holding in any company holding a telecoms licence, the foreigners may use these loans as a springboard for a full takeover. Many foreign companies now favour full control, seeing it as a chance to impose their own standards. In the early stages, a foreign firm needs a local partner’s government contacts and distribution; but once established, foreign firms complain that local partners contribute little in the way of technology or capital. One of the advisors, McKinsey & Co., a management consultancy, points out in a forthcoming report that the government now allows foreign firms to set up wholly owned investment companies that can subsequently buy Indian firms.

In the past, the big families could count on the support of India's financial institutions, which own around 40% of most big companies. However, institutions such as the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India are now trying hard to prune non-performing assets. They have told families such as the Modis that they must sort out their run-down businesses or close them (which is difficult under India's restrictive labour laws) or sell. Before, we used to be benign investors. Now families will increasingly be asked to go when they don't perform, says one senior manager. Still, no family has yet been thrown to the wolves.

The author is most likely to disagree with the statement that

1. democracy provides the right to follow a particular view point and by this very definition, it also provides a legitimate existence to a contrary viewpoint, thereby creating paradoxes.
2. the use of force to propagate a viewpoint in a democratic nation is not only illegal but also restrictive in the sense that it disallows the basic rights to the opponents of the viewpoint.
3. direct action these days consists of non-violent gherao and bandhs.

While we have forgotten much of what Gandhi ji recommended regarding the use of Satyagraha against a foreign ruler, we see instances of it, day in and day out, in support of some cause or issue a group of people advocates. And this is happening 60 years after our country has had a fully democratic system with adult franchise. Whereas Satyagraha was intended to be peaceful, today's direct action is accompanied by threats and violence.

There have also been cases of direct action directed at private individuals or groups. Such action as practised today is openly coercive. A boycott of a play thought to be anti-Hindu or of a film thought to be obscene prevents those who disagree, from attending the performance and exposes the organisers to stone-throwing and arson, and, of course, financial loss. Gandhi ji was justified in breaking the salt law as it was passed by the British and we were powerless to rescind it. If we have a bad law today, the correct remedy can never be satyagraha or civil disobedience. The proper democratic course of action would be to campaign for its repeal. Similarly, if there is some evil which is rampant, the democratic course of action is to campaign for the enforcement of the law against it or, if there is no satisfactory law, for its enactment.

The right which democracy confers is to propound a particular view point; inherent in the right is the right of its opponents to disagree. The moment the proponents of a viewpoint adopt coercive tactics, not only are they acting unlawfully, they are also denying their opponents their democratic right to disagree. Every so often the morchas are organised by groups which either want disturbances or at least do not mind them. A morchais in these cases is accompanied by shattered windows, looted shops and smashed buses and cars. A more extreme form of such agitation is a bandh.  Even a peaceful bandh results in lakhs of people losing money.

No doubt the government ought to prevent such acts. But it is unsure of public support and afraid of the violence that often erupts if morchas or bandhs are sought to be prevented. It takes the easy path of inaction. At times, it is in sympathy with the cause and actively supports the agitation.

It is high time we woke up to what these pressure groups are doing and make them stop bullying the common man. If we keep on permitting interest groups to carry on as they have been doing, a day will come when we will witness the end of both the rule of law and democracy.

Which of the following has not been cited as a factor that favored the Indian family businesses until recently?

Directions: Read the following passages and answer the question that follows:

PASSAGE – II

The new takeover code, looks at first glance like a typically complicated bit of Indian rulemaking. But two incendiary charges are buried within its many pages. First, SEBI wants to make takeovers, including hostile bids, much easier. Second, it wants to protect the rights of minority shareholders. For instance, any investor who takes a stake of 10% in a company must then make an offer for a further 20%, after that, any substantial increase has to be by an open offer to all the shareholders.

Just possibly, the new takeover code may cause the very large house of cards that is corporate India to collapse. It provides a way for the families that control Indian businesses to be replaced by more widely held companies or even by corporate raiders. Their immediate problem is cash. With profits harder to make, credit hard to come by, and a relatively small equity market, many family firms are being forced to weed their portfolios, retiring from investments they rushed into, in easier times.

If the government relaxes rules requiring an Indian majority holding in any company holding a telecoms licence, the foreigners may use these loans as a springboard for a full takeover. Many foreign companies now favour full control, seeing it as a chance to impose their own standards. In the early stages, a foreign firm needs a local partner’s government contacts and distribution; but once established, foreign firms complain that local partners contribute little in the way of technology or capital. One of the advisors, McKinsey & Co., a management consultancy, points out in a forthcoming report that the government now allows foreign firms to set up wholly owned investment companies that can subsequently buy Indian firms.

In the past, the big families could count on the support of India's financial institutions, which own around 40% of most big companies. However, institutions such as the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India are now trying hard to prune non-performing assets. They have told families such as the Modis that they must sort out their run-down businesses or close them (which is difficult under India's restrictive labour laws) or sell. Before, we used to be benign investors. Now families will increasingly be asked to go when they don't perform, says one senior manager. Still, no family has yet been thrown to the wolves.