PGDBA 2017

Instructions

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow:
Passage II

Humans are pretty inventive creatures. That might be cause for optimism about the future of global change. We've found solutions to lots of problems in the past. And with a much larger and better-educated population than the world has ever seen — the supply of good ideas can only increase. So innovation will figure out a way to sustainable futures.

But what is innovation? The media and companies routinely equate innovation with shiny new gadgets. In the same spirit, politicians charged with managing economies frequently talk as if all innovation is good. The history of almost any technology, however — from farming to applied nuclear physics — reveals a mixture of good and bad.

The study of the concept of innovation, and of whether it can be steered, is a relatively recent academic effort. There are three ways that scholars have thought about innovation. The first was basically linear: science begets invention that begets innovation. Physics, for instance, gives us lasers, which give us —eventually — compact discs. Result: Growth! Prosperity! Rising living standards for all! From this perspective, it's assumed that science is the basis for long-term growth, and that innovation largely involves commercialisation of scientific discoveries. There is a role for the state, but only in funding the research. The rest can be left to the private sector.

By the 1970s, economists interested in technology and some policy-makers were talking about something more complicated: national systems of innovation competing with each other. Such "systems" included measures to promote transfer of technology out of the lab, especially by building links between centres of discovery and technologists and entrepreneurs.
The key failing of these two approaches is that they treat less desirable outcomes of innovation as externalities and are blind to the possibility that they may call for radically different technological priorities. The environmental effects of energy and materials-intensive industries may turn, out to be more destructive than we can handle.

Radical system change is a third way to think about innovation. Technological trajectories aren't pre-ordained: Some paths arc chosen at the expense of others. And that's harder because it needs more than incremental change. The near future is about transformation. The more complex historical and social understanding of innovation now emerging leads to a richer concept of infrastructure, as part of a system with social and technical elements interwoven.

An emphasis on the new, the experimental, the innovative - and on promoting social and technical solutions to global problems must overcome the sheer inertia of the systems we have already built - and are often still extending. Aiming for transformation leads to another take on creative destruction. It isn't enough to promote innovation as creation, the existing system has to be destabilized as well. System shifts of the radical kind envisaged will call for creation of a new infrastructure. But that won't do the job unless the old systems are deliberately removed on roughly the same time-scale. Achieving that will call for a lot more thought about how to if not destroy the old systems, at least set about dismantling them.

Question 11

According to the author, the first two approaches related to the study of innovation are inadequate because 

Question 12

The key difference between the first and second approaches related to the study of innovation is

Question 13

Which of the following statements best describe the author's view on innovation?


Question 14

By the expression, "The media and companies routinely equate, innovation with Shiny new gadgets" , the author is

Question 15

According to the author, radical systems change is primarily about

Instructions

Answer the questions based on the following information.

Examinations were held during the two weeks of January — Sunday the 3rd to Saturday the 16th. There was one examination each for the six subjects namely, Sociology, Psychology, Economics, Political Science, Anthropology and Biology. There was no more than one examination on any day. No examinations were held on Saturdays, Sundays and on January 5th, which was a national holiday. Exactly three examinations were held in each week. The Psychology examination was held before the Economics examination, and the Political Science examination was held the day after the Biology examination. The Economics and the Political Science examinations were held on the same day of the week. Similarly, the Sociology and the Psychology examinations were held on the same day of the week. There were no examinations for three days between the Sociology examination and the examination prior to it. The Biology and the Anthropology examinations were held on a Tuesday and a Thursday respectively.

Question 16

On which of the following set of dates were there no examinations?


Question 17

On which of the following dates was the Biology examination held?

Question 18

Which examination was held on $$4^{th}$$ January?

Question 19

The number of days (including weekends and holidays, if any) between the Psychology and the Anthropology examination is


Question 20

Which examinations were held in the first week?

Register with

OR

Boost your Prep!

Download App