Option (3) is ruled out as the passage does not even hint at checking corruption. The tag of universal given to corruption in option (1) cannot be justified with two examples because the passage fails to either quote or hint at its geographical spread. These are isolated examples of what corruption can do to different aspects of human activity. Option (4) is again unjustified because the very first line mentions the word some, which means there are other people having power and discretion and who are still not corrupt. Option (5) does not summarize the basic point being made here i.e. corruption is unavoidable when people have power and discretion. This is aptly done by option (2).

………the first theory of nearly everything. ________. Most scientific theories apply to just one particular area. Note the word everything carefully. This word has been written in the next line consequent to the idea of his being a young genius. Certainly everything is all inclusive. Option (4) fits in perfectly as a filler as it supplies the necessary counter-reply to the possible resistance cropping up in the reader's mind over the word everything. The only competition to it seems to be (5) to some extent, but it does not fit in with the flow of though here.

Option (1), which highlights the fact of small firms going down under as a consequence of the entry of bigger players, carries the idea too far. The only claim being made by small companies is that they suffer decline in profits in such situations. Besides, it is many, not all companies, which makers it doubly wrong as an answer choice. Option (3) tends to weaken the small companies viewpoint. Hence, it ruled out. Option (4) makes an irrelevant remark which ahs no bearing on the question. Option (5) is putting a big rider on the entry of bigger players and in fact, will not be universally applicable. So the extent of application of this provision is not known. The correct option (2) is in line with the point raised by small companies given in the paragraph and is therefore, the best possible choice.

Option (1) is not factually supported by the paragraph as the paragraph only talks of particular avenues of investment, which may or may not yield some returns. So the question of superior returns or the potential thereof, does not arise at all. Again, option (2) can be similarly ruled out because stability and consistency - these two concerns are hardly addressed by the newer avenues (at least, the paragraph does not support it). Option (4) introduces an interesting, but irrelevant aside in the form of that unknown zing factor. Option (5) represents a possible closing line, but is hardly supported by the contents given in the paragraph. The focus of the paragraph remains on the idea of encoding everything in finance with as symbol. Go back to the first line, the emphasis is on Greek letter. Hence, option (3).

If the Chinese are guilty of exaggerating about bicycle use, it tends to further support the author's contention and is therefore the opposite of what we are trying to locate. Hence, option (1) is wrong here. Option (4) is irrelevant for it talks of another mode of transport, which is not the focus of discussion. Option (5) creates a scenario of an accident being responsible for lesser use of bicycle in future. In a way, it discusses possible reasons for lesser bicycle use by the Chinese. Option (2) is again irrelevant here as it talks of the use of bicycle for shopping, while the author equates the use of bicycling with exercise and going to office. Option (3) is the best one for it points out a major flaw in the author's reasoning because it highlights other possible uses which the bicycles can be put to by the Chinese, thereby negating the hypothesis that not much real use of bicycles takes place.

Option (2) is utterly irrelevant here as there is nothing said about the realism of senior managers. The passage hints at the idea that assessing others and punishing them is not easy. Thus option (4) is not correct while option (5) is wrong due its being unjustified in the context of this passage. Option (1) is best supported by the first few lines of the paragraph.

The idea of its being the biggest reference source is not given at all, hence ruling out option (5). Options (1) and (5) again are not supported by the paragraph anywhere. Option (2) tends to go against the idea of the passage, which highlights its biasness in this regard. Option (4) summarises the paragraph aptly, while acknowledging both negative and positive features of the Wikipedia.

“They fail to realize that ultimately, competition is going to do a whole world of good to their operations.” This line no way justifies what good is done to small companies by more competition. At best, it is a fairly general, unproven remark in this context. Hence, option (4) is the best one. Option (3) is totally off the mark while (1) is unjustified as the reasoning used is unidirectional. Giving numerical data is the best thing to prove a point, but it is not mandatory, nor is it possible in many cases. So option (2) is incorrect.

The problem being discussed here is that the company is running in losses due to higher claim ratios which are not going to be solved by having a re-look at accounting policies (option choice 2), or suspending the payment of dividend (choice 4- there is hardly any question of any dividend payment if the company is running in losses already) or refusing policies to adult who had serious disease as a child (choice 5 how do we decide it?). Refusing to allow a floater cover (choice 3) defeats its very purpose, which will drive away the customers. Hence, none of these steps is going to solve the problem at all.  In the given circumstances, choice 1 seems to be the most sensible one. Hence option (1) is the correct answer.

The paragraph talks of a negative correlation between liquor consumption and crime rate, which to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt to come to a firm conclusion. In this context, option (1) is a tricky answer as it talks of a shift in the definition of crime. It could have been a possible correct answer but for this expression, which could mean a more liberal or tighter definition. Now, if the new definition is tighter, it will result in fewer reported crimes while if the definition has been liberalized, it will result in more reported crimes. Hence, it is not possible to conclude anything with certainty in this case. Option (5) works on the basis of modeling, which is a poor way of reasoning. Hence, ruled out. Option (3) tries to trick the reader into believing that if serious crimes are not factored into the overall crime rate, it renders the entire idea useless. Please note carefully, the passage does not talk of the serious crime rate. Thus the option can be ruled out. So is true of option (2) which alludes to villages, which are hardly a topic of concern for we are talking about the city only. Hence, it is irrelevant as an answer choice. There could have been many possible reasons for the observed fall in crime rate. When several possibilities exist to account for an observed phenomenon, we need to rule out all others before we can zero in on a particular causal factor. The crime rate could have fallen due to more vigilance by people, better police efficiency or anything else. Simply because we happened to witness two things simultaneously does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other. Hence, choice (4) happens to the best one.

Option (2) represents, at the most, a reiteration of a point directly stated in the passage. Hence it cannot be an assumption at all. Option (3) is not justified because the passage does not hint at anything regarding the percentage of the US population using the internet. At the most, it could be classified as an invalid conclusion, drawn on the basis of the contents given here. In no case does it become an inherent assumption underlying the argument. Option (4), if we place it at the end of the passage, could have become a suitable conclusion, which follows logically from the passage here.  Option (5) refers to a very secondary fact stated in the passage about China’s user population being thrice that of India. But the author primarily makes a point about China and the US, not about India. Thus, it is ruled out despite being numerically correct. Option (1) is the best answer as the paragraph clearly mentions in the last line that due to low user base, the rapid pace of growth is likely to continue, implying thereby that we can add much more at low levels rather than at higher levels of base value.

The paragraph talks of a negative correlation between internet user base and the readership of print media. The correct answer would be one talking of a similar negative correlation, regardless of the subject matter or content. From this perspective, option (3) talks of a positive correlation, wherein two variables move in the same direction. Thus option (3) is wrong here. Option (1) and (5) are irrelevant to the question in hand as they do not talk of any correlation at all. Option (4) is a deceptively plausible answer as it uses the word shift which could mean either way. Hence it is not justified. Choice (3) can be rejected because it alludes to a positive correlation between two variables i.e. a rise in crime rate along with a rise in the number of licensed weapons. The best possible choice is (2), which talks of a spurt in attendance along with a fall in the use of cell phones on school campuses, implying a negative correlation.

An analogy, by definition, compares two sets of phenomena, each containing a set of minimum two items. This is not the case here, thereby ruling out option (1). The area of discussion remains only and only the impact of rising oil prices on different sets of industries and people. No idea has been favoured or criticised by the author. Thus option (4) is again wrong. Option (5) could be similarly ruled out as the two kinds of effects being discussed are not the same. Option (3) happens to be the best choice in that the author mainly talking about the sequential effects of an oil price rise on different industries and people.

Option (2) talks of one’s age as being a parameter in deciding one’s income. More age could imply better skills, it could also imply income from other sources or something else. So evaluating this data may not yield much as we would not be sure whether older people did have more education or not. Thus, option (2) is incorrect. Even option (3) is quite similar and is, therefore, wrong. Option (4) speaks of a comparison between the incomes earned by today’s farmers and their ancestors, without focusing on the patience level as a determinant of income. Again option (5) talks of the consequences of having a lesser or a higher income in the form of ability to send children to school, which will not help us at all in evaluating the hypothesis.  Correlating average incomes and the length of schooling will establish the truth or otherwise of the hypothesis as the main point is whether patience has its rewards in the form of better income or not. Hence, option (1) is the best choice

In principle and in practice both, a higher court does have the authority to quash a decision given by its lower courts. Adjudicating upon appeals from lower courts is what it is meant for. In principle, it cannot be faulted on this ground, hence, ruling out option (1). Option (3) is not justified either within the context or outside of it. The case did not involve a medical question. It is certain that the man in question had died of lung cancer due to heavy cigarette smoking. The real question is that of deciding to what extent the company responsible for harm done to a man and its liability in this regard. Option (4), therefore, is incorrect. Option (5) addresses a very secondary question, which is definitely taken into account while awarding punitive damages but it is certainly not a major factor. It is mainly the gravity of the offence that is being discussed.