SNAP Reading Comprehension questions

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Francisco August 13 2018
Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to. An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so. Computer science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP's request. For the most part, Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a "timeline" that maps out your daily movements. Storing your minute-by—minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects - such as a warrant that police in North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you "pause' a setting called Location History. Google says this will prevent the company from remembering where you have been. Google’s support page on the subject states. "You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored”. That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time — stamped location data without asking. For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies" or "kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot and save it to the Google account. The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google's Android operating software and hundreds of millions of world wide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search. Storing location data in violation of a user’s preferences is wrong, said Ionathon Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist. A researcher from Mayer’s lab confirmed the AP's findings; the AP conducted its own tests on several iPhones that found the same behaviour. “If you are going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History‘, then all the places where you maintain ‘Location History' should be turned off," Mayer said. "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have”. Google says it is being perfectly clear. "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App activity and through device-level Location Services" a Google spokesperson said. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls, so people can turn them on and off, and delete their histories at any time." To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account. When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account But leaving "Web and App activity” on and turning "Location History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline", its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Francisco August 13 2018
Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to. An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so. Computer science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP's request. For the most part, Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a "timeline" that maps out your daily movements. Storing your minute-by—minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects - such as a warrant that police in North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you "pause' a setting called Location History. Google says this will prevent the company from remembering where you have been. Google’s support page on the subject states. "You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored”. That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time — stamped location data without asking. For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies" or "kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot and save it to the Google account. The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google's Android operating software and hundreds of millions of world wide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search. Storing location data in violation of a user’s preferences is wrong, said Ionathon Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist. A researcher from Mayer’s lab confirmed the AP's findings; the AP conducted its own tests on several iPhones that found the same behaviour. “If you are going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History‘, then all the places where you maintain ‘Location History' should be turned off," Mayer said. "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have”. Google says it is being perfectly clear. "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App activity and through device-level Location Services" a Google spokesperson said. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls, so people can turn them on and off, and delete their histories at any time." To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account. When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account But leaving "Web and App activity” on and turning "Location History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline", its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Francisco August 13 2018
Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to. An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so. Computer science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP's request. For the most part, Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a "timeline" that maps out your daily movements. Storing your minute-by—minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects - such as a warrant that police in North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you "pause' a setting called Location History. Google says this will prevent the company from remembering where you have been. Google’s support page on the subject states. "You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored”. That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time — stamped location data without asking. For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies" or "kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot and save it to the Google account. The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google's Android operating software and hundreds of millions of world wide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search. Storing location data in violation of a user’s preferences is wrong, said Ionathon Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist. A researcher from Mayer’s lab confirmed the AP's findings; the AP conducted its own tests on several iPhones that found the same behaviour. “If you are going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History‘, then all the places where you maintain ‘Location History' should be turned off," Mayer said. "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have”. Google says it is being perfectly clear. "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App activity and through device-level Location Services" a Google spokesperson said. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls, so people can turn them on and off, and delete their histories at any time." To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account. When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account But leaving "Web and App activity” on and turning "Location History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline", its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.

correct answer:-1

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Francisco August 13 2018
Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to. An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so. Computer science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP's request. For the most part, Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a "timeline" that maps out your daily movements. Storing your minute-by—minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects - such as a warrant that police in North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you "pause' a setting called Location History. Google says this will prevent the company from remembering where you have been. Google’s support page on the subject states. "You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored”. That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time — stamped location data without asking. For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies" or "kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot and save it to the Google account. The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google's Android operating software and hundreds of millions of world wide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search. Storing location data in violation of a user’s preferences is wrong, said Ionathon Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist. A researcher from Mayer’s lab confirmed the AP's findings; the AP conducted its own tests on several iPhones that found the same behaviour. “If you are going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History‘, then all the places where you maintain ‘Location History' should be turned off," Mayer said. "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have”. Google says it is being perfectly clear. "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App activity and through device-level Location Services" a Google spokesperson said. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls, so people can turn them on and off, and delete their histories at any time." To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account. When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account But leaving "Web and App activity” on and turning "Location History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline", its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.

correct answer:-2

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
San Francisco August 13 2018
Google wants to know where you go so badly that it records your movements even when you explicitly tell it not to. An Associated Press investigation found that many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you've used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so. Computer science researchers at Princeton confirmed these findings at the AP's request. For the most part, Google is upfront about asking permission to use your location information. An app like Google Maps will remind you to allow access to location if you use it for navigating. If you agree to let it record your location over time, Google Maps will display that history for you in a "timeline" that maps out your daily movements. Storing your minute-by—minute travels carries privacy risks and has been used by police to determine the location of suspects - such as a warrant that police in North Carolina, served on Google last year to find devices near a murder scene. So the company will let you "pause' a setting called Location History. Google says this will prevent the company from remembering where you have been. Google’s support page on the subject states. "You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored”. That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time — stamped location data without asking. For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies" or "kids science kits," pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot and save it to the Google account. The privacy issue affects some two billion users of devices that run Google's Android operating software and hundreds of millions of world wide iPhone users who rely on Google for maps or search. Storing location data in violation of a user’s preferences is wrong, said Ionathon Mayer, a Princeton computer scientist. A researcher from Mayer’s lab confirmed the AP's findings; the AP conducted its own tests on several iPhones that found the same behaviour. “If you are going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History‘, then all the places where you maintain ‘Location History' should be turned off," Mayer said. "That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have”. Google says it is being perfectly clear. "There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App activity and through device-level Location Services" a Google spokesperson said. "We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls, so people can turn them on and off, and delete their histories at any time." To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called "Web and App activity" and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account. When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account But leaving "Web and App activity” on and turning "Location History" off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the "timeline", its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 2:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Frederic Bastiat, who was that rarest of creatures, a French free-market economist, wrote to this newspaper in 1846 to express a noble and romantic hope: ”May all the nations soon throw down the barriers which separate them." Those words were echoed 125 years later by the call of John Lennon, who was not an economist but a rather successful global capitalist, to "imagine there's no countries”. As he said in his 1971 song. it isn't hard to do. But despite the spectacular rise in living standards that has occurred as barriers between nations have fallen, and despite the resulting escape from poverty by hundreds of millions of people in those places that have joined the world economy, it is still hard to convince publics and politicians of the merits of openness. Now, once again, a queue is forming to denounce openness—i.e, globalisation. It is putting at risk the next big advance in trade liberalisation and the next big reduction in poverty in the developing countries. The world will find out, to some extent, next month when ministers from the 148 countries in the WTO meet in Hong Kong. The last time they gathered for such a crucial meeting was in September 2003 in Cancun, and the result was a shambles. There was a bitter row between rich countries and poor ones, and the meeting broke up in acrimony. At that stage, however, there was still plenty of time to repair the damage. For in effect, the deadline for the Doha round comes in June 2007, when the trade-negotiating authority granted by Congress to President Bush expires. But, although that leaves more than a year and a half after Hong Kong, the complexity of a negotiation involving 148 countries and scores of highly technical issues means that the deal really needs to be done during 2006, with the political framework for it set early on—which essentially means in Hong Kong. The case for selfish generosity Trade- liberalisation rounds are arcane affairs about which free-traders are often thought to cry wolf. The previous talks, known as the Uruguay round, went through lots of brinkmanship and delays before they were completed. The result was still disappointing in many ways, especially to developing countries, and yet, since the round's completion in 1993, the world economy has grown lustily and the biggest developing countries, China, India and Brazil, have all burst on to the global trading scene. Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loop holes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. Yet though some sort of fudge in Hong Kong must be likely, with the Americans lowering their ambition and the Europeans raising theirs a little, such an outcome would still represent both a missed opportunity and a risk. The missed opportunity is that Doha has offered the first proper chance to involve developing countries in trade negotiations—they now make up two- thirds of the WTO members—but also thereby to use a full exchange of agricultural, industrial and service liberalisations to make a big advance in free trade that could benefit a wide range of countries. Some of that progress may still be made, even in a fudged deal: Brazil, for example, stands to benefit hugely from freer trade in agriculture, so it should be willing to promote other concessions in return. India is reluctant to cut its own farm tariffs but has a big interest in liberalising trade in services, wanting more freedom in everything from finance to health care to entertainment But if the rich world could gird itself to be more ambitious on agriculture, the gains would be even greater: help for the poorest countries, making the rich look generous; better access to the biggest and richest developing countries for western companies; and a rise in global income in a decade's time of $300 billion a year (says the World Bank), which would thus help everyone. The risk is that failure to agree on a new wave of openness during a period [the past two years) in which the world economy has been growing at its fastest for three decades, with more countries sharing in that grth than ever before, will set a sour political note for what may well be tougher times ahead. A turn away from trade liberalisation just ahead of an American recession, say, or a Chinese economic slowdown, could open up a chance not just for a slowdown in progress but for a rollback Currently, for example, the Schumer bill to put a penal tariff on Chinese goods looks unlikely to pass. If American unemployment were rising and world trade talks had turned acrimonious, that might change. So might the political wind in many developing countries. If so, that would be a tragedy for the whole world. Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services) amid a rule of law provided by government In other words, globalisation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, anyone who is tired of that, is tired of life.

correct answer:-2

---

Instruction for set 2:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Frederic Bastiat, who was that rarest of creatures, a French free-market economist, wrote to this newspaper in 1846 to express a noble and romantic hope: ”May all the nations soon throw down the barriers which separate them." Those words were echoed 125 years later by the call of John Lennon, who was not an economist but a rather successful global capitalist, to "imagine there's no countries”. As he said in his 1971 song. it isn't hard to do. But despite the spectacular rise in living standards that has occurred as barriers between nations have fallen, and despite the resulting escape from poverty by hundreds of millions of people in those places that have joined the world economy, it is still hard to convince publics and politicians of the merits of openness. Now, once again, a queue is forming to denounce openness—i.e, globalisation. It is putting at risk the next big advance in trade liberalisation and the next big reduction in poverty in the developing countries. The world will find out, to some extent, next month when ministers from the 148 countries in the WTO meet in Hong Kong. The last time they gathered for such a crucial meeting was in September 2003 in Cancun, and the result was a shambles. There was a bitter row between rich countries and poor ones, and the meeting broke up in acrimony. At that stage, however, there was still plenty of time to repair the damage. For in effect, the deadline for the Doha round comes in June 2007, when the trade-negotiating authority granted by Congress to President Bush expires. But, although that leaves more than a year and a half after Hong Kong, the complexity of a negotiation involving 148 countries and scores of highly technical issues means that the deal really needs to be done during 2006, with the political framework for it set early on—which essentially means in Hong Kong. The case for selfish generosity Trade- liberalisation rounds are arcane affairs about which free-traders are often thought to cry wolf. The previous talks, known as the Uruguay round, went through lots of brinkmanship and delays before they were completed. The result was still disappointing in many ways, especially to developing countries, and yet, since the round's completion in 1993, the world economy has grown lustily and the biggest developing countries, China, India and Brazil, have all burst on to the global trading scene. Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loop holes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. Yet though some sort of fudge in Hong Kong must be likely, with the Americans lowering their ambition and the Europeans raising theirs a little, such an outcome would still represent both a missed opportunity and a risk. The missed opportunity is that Doha has offered the first proper chance to involve developing countries in trade negotiations—they now make up two- thirds of the WTO members—but also thereby to use a full exchange of agricultural, industrial and service liberalisations to make a big advance in free trade that could benefit a wide range of countries. Some of that progress may still be made, even in a fudged deal: Brazil, for example, stands to benefit hugely from freer trade in agriculture, so it should be willing to promote other concessions in return. India is reluctant to cut its own farm tariffs but has a big interest in liberalising trade in services, wanting more freedom in everything from finance to health care to entertainment But if the rich world could gird itself to be more ambitious on agriculture, the gains would be even greater: help for the poorest countries, making the rich look generous; better access to the biggest and richest developing countries for western companies; and a rise in global income in a decade's time of $300 billion a year (says the World Bank), which would thus help everyone. The risk is that failure to agree on a new wave of openness during a period [the past two years) in which the world economy has been growing at its fastest for three decades, with more countries sharing in that grth than ever before, will set a sour political note for what may well be tougher times ahead. A turn away from trade liberalisation just ahead of an American recession, say, or a Chinese economic slowdown, could open up a chance not just for a slowdown in progress but for a rollback Currently, for example, the Schumer bill to put a penal tariff on Chinese goods looks unlikely to pass. If American unemployment were rising and world trade talks had turned acrimonious, that might change. So might the political wind in many developing countries. If so, that would be a tragedy for the whole world. Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services) amid a rule of law provided by government In other words, globalisation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, anyone who is tired of that, is tired of life.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 2:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Frederic Bastiat, who was that rarest of creatures, a French free-market economist, wrote to this newspaper in 1846 to express a noble and romantic hope: ”May all the nations soon throw down the barriers which separate them." Those words were echoed 125 years later by the call of John Lennon, who was not an economist but a rather successful global capitalist, to "imagine there's no countries”. As he said in his 1971 song. it isn't hard to do. But despite the spectacular rise in living standards that has occurred as barriers between nations have fallen, and despite the resulting escape from poverty by hundreds of millions of people in those places that have joined the world economy, it is still hard to convince publics and politicians of the merits of openness. Now, once again, a queue is forming to denounce openness—i.e, globalisation. It is putting at risk the next big advance in trade liberalisation and the next big reduction in poverty in the developing countries. The world will find out, to some extent, next month when ministers from the 148 countries in the WTO meet in Hong Kong. The last time they gathered for such a crucial meeting was in September 2003 in Cancun, and the result was a shambles. There was a bitter row between rich countries and poor ones, and the meeting broke up in acrimony. At that stage, however, there was still plenty of time to repair the damage. For in effect, the deadline for the Doha round comes in June 2007, when the trade-negotiating authority granted by Congress to President Bush expires. But, although that leaves more than a year and a half after Hong Kong, the complexity of a negotiation involving 148 countries and scores of highly technical issues means that the deal really needs to be done during 2006, with the political framework for it set early on—which essentially means in Hong Kong. The case for selfish generosity Trade- liberalisation rounds are arcane affairs about which free-traders are often thought to cry wolf. The previous talks, known as the Uruguay round, went through lots of brinkmanship and delays before they were completed. The result was still disappointing in many ways, especially to developing countries, and yet, since the round's completion in 1993, the world economy has grown lustily and the biggest developing countries, China, India and Brazil, have all burst on to the global trading scene. Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loop holes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. Yet though some sort of fudge in Hong Kong must be likely, with the Americans lowering their ambition and the Europeans raising theirs a little, such an outcome would still represent both a missed opportunity and a risk. The missed opportunity is that Doha has offered the first proper chance to involve developing countries in trade negotiations—they now make up two- thirds of the WTO members—but also thereby to use a full exchange of agricultural, industrial and service liberalisations to make a big advance in free trade that could benefit a wide range of countries. Some of that progress may still be made, even in a fudged deal: Brazil, for example, stands to benefit hugely from freer trade in agriculture, so it should be willing to promote other concessions in return. India is reluctant to cut its own farm tariffs but has a big interest in liberalising trade in services, wanting more freedom in everything from finance to health care to entertainment But if the rich world could gird itself to be more ambitious on agriculture, the gains would be even greater: help for the poorest countries, making the rich look generous; better access to the biggest and richest developing countries for western companies; and a rise in global income in a decade's time of $300 billion a year (says the World Bank), which would thus help everyone. The risk is that failure to agree on a new wave of openness during a period [the past two years) in which the world economy has been growing at its fastest for three decades, with more countries sharing in that grth than ever before, will set a sour political note for what may well be tougher times ahead. A turn away from trade liberalisation just ahead of an American recession, say, or a Chinese economic slowdown, could open up a chance not just for a slowdown in progress but for a rollback Currently, for example, the Schumer bill to put a penal tariff on Chinese goods looks unlikely to pass. If American unemployment were rising and world trade talks had turned acrimonious, that might change. So might the political wind in many developing countries. If so, that would be a tragedy for the whole world. Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services) amid a rule of law provided by government In other words, globalisation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, anyone who is tired of that, is tired of life.

correct answer:-4

---

Instruction for set 2:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Frederic Bastiat, who was that rarest of creatures, a French free-market economist, wrote to this newspaper in 1846 to express a noble and romantic hope: ”May all the nations soon throw down the barriers which separate them." Those words were echoed 125 years later by the call of John Lennon, who was not an economist but a rather successful global capitalist, to "imagine there's no countries”. As he said in his 1971 song. it isn't hard to do. But despite the spectacular rise in living standards that has occurred as barriers between nations have fallen, and despite the resulting escape from poverty by hundreds of millions of people in those places that have joined the world economy, it is still hard to convince publics and politicians of the merits of openness. Now, once again, a queue is forming to denounce openness—i.e, globalisation. It is putting at risk the next big advance in trade liberalisation and the next big reduction in poverty in the developing countries. The world will find out, to some extent, next month when ministers from the 148 countries in the WTO meet in Hong Kong. The last time they gathered for such a crucial meeting was in September 2003 in Cancun, and the result was a shambles. There was a bitter row between rich countries and poor ones, and the meeting broke up in acrimony. At that stage, however, there was still plenty of time to repair the damage. For in effect, the deadline for the Doha round comes in June 2007, when the trade-negotiating authority granted by Congress to President Bush expires. But, although that leaves more than a year and a half after Hong Kong, the complexity of a negotiation involving 148 countries and scores of highly technical issues means that the deal really needs to be done during 2006, with the political framework for it set early on—which essentially means in Hong Kong. The case for selfish generosity Trade- liberalisation rounds are arcane affairs about which free-traders are often thought to cry wolf. The previous talks, known as the Uruguay round, went through lots of brinkmanship and delays before they were completed. The result was still disappointing in many ways, especially to developing countries, and yet, since the round's completion in 1993, the world economy has grown lustily and the biggest developing countries, China, India and Brazil, have all burst on to the global trading scene. Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loop holes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. Yet though some sort of fudge in Hong Kong must be likely, with the Americans lowering their ambition and the Europeans raising theirs a little, such an outcome would still represent both a missed opportunity and a risk. The missed opportunity is that Doha has offered the first proper chance to involve developing countries in trade negotiations—they now make up two- thirds of the WTO members—but also thereby to use a full exchange of agricultural, industrial and service liberalisations to make a big advance in free trade that could benefit a wide range of countries. Some of that progress may still be made, even in a fudged deal: Brazil, for example, stands to benefit hugely from freer trade in agriculture, so it should be willing to promote other concessions in return. India is reluctant to cut its own farm tariffs but has a big interest in liberalising trade in services, wanting more freedom in everything from finance to health care to entertainment But if the rich world could gird itself to be more ambitious on agriculture, the gains would be even greater: help for the poorest countries, making the rich look generous; better access to the biggest and richest developing countries for western companies; and a rise in global income in a decade's time of $300 billion a year (says the World Bank), which would thus help everyone. The risk is that failure to agree on a new wave of openness during a period [the past two years) in which the world economy has been growing at its fastest for three decades, with more countries sharing in that grth than ever before, will set a sour political note for what may well be tougher times ahead. A turn away from trade liberalisation just ahead of an American recession, say, or a Chinese economic slowdown, could open up a chance not just for a slowdown in progress but for a rollback Currently, for example, the Schumer bill to put a penal tariff on Chinese goods looks unlikely to pass. If American unemployment were rising and world trade talks had turned acrimonious, that might change. So might the political wind in many developing countries. If so, that would be a tragedy for the whole world. Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services) amid a rule of law provided by government In other words, globalisation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, anyone who is tired of that, is tired of life.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 2:

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

Frederic Bastiat, who was that rarest of creatures, a French free-market economist, wrote to this newspaper in 1846 to express a noble and romantic hope: ”May all the nations soon throw down the barriers which separate them." Those words were echoed 125 years later by the call of John Lennon, who was not an economist but a rather successful global capitalist, to "imagine there's no countries”. As he said in his 1971 song. it isn't hard to do. But despite the spectacular rise in living standards that has occurred as barriers between nations have fallen, and despite the resulting escape from poverty by hundreds of millions of people in those places that have joined the world economy, it is still hard to convince publics and politicians of the merits of openness. Now, once again, a queue is forming to denounce openness—i.e, globalisation. It is putting at risk the next big advance in trade liberalisation and the next big reduction in poverty in the developing countries. The world will find out, to some extent, next month when ministers from the 148 countries in the WTO meet in Hong Kong. The last time they gathered for such a crucial meeting was in September 2003 in Cancun, and the result was a shambles. There was a bitter row between rich countries and poor ones, and the meeting broke up in acrimony. At that stage, however, there was still plenty of time to repair the damage. For in effect, the deadline for the Doha round comes in June 2007, when the trade-negotiating authority granted by Congress to President Bush expires. But, although that leaves more than a year and a half after Hong Kong, the complexity of a negotiation involving 148 countries and scores of highly technical issues means that the deal really needs to be done during 2006, with the political framework for it set early on—which essentially means in Hong Kong. The case for selfish generosity Trade- liberalisation rounds are arcane affairs about which free-traders are often thought to cry wolf. The previous talks, known as the Uruguay round, went through lots of brinkmanship and delays before they were completed. The result was still disappointing in many ways, especially to developing countries, and yet, since the round's completion in 1993, the world economy has grown lustily and the biggest developing countries, China, India and Brazil, have all burst on to the global trading scene. Would the world really be hurt if the EU merely refuses to expose its farmers to more competition? The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loop holes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. Yet though some sort of fudge in Hong Kong must be likely, with the Americans lowering their ambition and the Europeans raising theirs a little, such an outcome would still represent both a missed opportunity and a risk. The missed opportunity is that Doha has offered the first proper chance to involve developing countries in trade negotiations—they now make up two- thirds of the WTO members—but also thereby to use a full exchange of agricultural, industrial and service liberalisations to make a big advance in free trade that could benefit a wide range of countries. Some of that progress may still be made, even in a fudged deal: Brazil, for example, stands to benefit hugely from freer trade in agriculture, so it should be willing to promote other concessions in return. India is reluctant to cut its own farm tariffs but has a big interest in liberalising trade in services, wanting more freedom in everything from finance to health care to entertainment But if the rich world could gird itself to be more ambitious on agriculture, the gains would be even greater: help for the poorest countries, making the rich look generous; better access to the biggest and richest developing countries for western companies; and a rise in global income in a decade's time of $300 billion a year (says the World Bank), which would thus help everyone. The risk is that failure to agree on a new wave of openness during a period [the past two years) in which the world economy has been growing at its fastest for three decades, with more countries sharing in that grth than ever before, will set a sour political note for what may well be tougher times ahead. A turn away from trade liberalisation just ahead of an American recession, say, or a Chinese economic slowdown, could open up a chance not just for a slowdown in progress but for a rollback Currently, for example, the Schumer bill to put a penal tariff on Chinese goods looks unlikely to pass. If American unemployment were rising and world trade talks had turned acrimonious, that might change. So might the political wind in many developing countries. If so, that would be a tragedy for the whole world. Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services) amid a rule of law provided by government In other words, globalisation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, anyone who is tired of that, is tired of life.

correct answer:-4

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions:

"There are several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion; the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have no time to consider the effect which your discoveries or invention may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death-rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take aneven more spectacular example, which is in everybody's mind at the present time- you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for
knowledge and incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge. Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, certain awareness of ends of human life. This may be illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness, since it started from earliest time and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year A.D. 400 down to his own time, Germany had been the most important nation and the standard bearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men/ women whose knowledge is wide but those feelings are narrow. Such men / women lack what I am calling wisdom. I think the essence of wisdom is emancipation, as far as possible, from the tyranny of the here and the now. We cannot help the egoism of our senses. Sight, sound and touch are bound up with our own bodies and cannot be made impersonal. Our emotions start similarly from ourselves. An infant feels hunger or discomfort; gradually with the years his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings
become less personal and less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom. This is of course a matter of degree. No one can view the world with complete impartiality; however, it is possible to make a continual approach towards impartiality, on the one hand, by knowing things somewhat remote in time or space, and, on the other hand, by giving to such things their due weight in our feelings. It is this approach towards impartiality that constitutes growth in wisdom. Perhaps in this sense the wisdom can be taught. I think that this teaching should have a larger intellectual element than has been customary in what has been thought of as moral instruction. I think that the
disastrous result of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who fed them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. Knowledge and morals ought not to be too much separated. It is true that the kind of specialized knowledge which is required for various kinds of skills has very little to do with wisdom. But it should be supplemented in education by wider surveys calculated to put it in its place in the totality of human activities. Even the best technicians should also be good citizens, i.e. citizens of the world and not of any one nation.
With every increase of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary for every such increase augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our capacity for evil, if our purposes are unwise. The world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before; and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions:

"There are several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion; the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have no time to consider the effect which your discoveries or invention may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death-rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take aneven more spectacular example, which is in everybody's mind at the present time- you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for
knowledge and incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge. Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, certain awareness of ends of human life. This may be illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness, since it started from earliest time and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year A.D. 400 down to his own time, Germany had been the most important nation and the standard bearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men/ women whose knowledge is wide but those feelings are narrow. Such men / women lack what I am calling wisdom. I think the essence of wisdom is emancipation, as far as possible, from the tyranny of the here and the now. We cannot help the egoism of our senses. Sight, sound and touch are bound up with our own bodies and cannot be made impersonal. Our emotions start similarly from ourselves. An infant feels hunger or discomfort; gradually with the years his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings
become less personal and less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom. This is of course a matter of degree. No one can view the world with complete impartiality; however, it is possible to make a continual approach towards impartiality, on the one hand, by knowing things somewhat remote in time or space, and, on the other hand, by giving to such things their due weight in our feelings. It is this approach towards impartiality that constitutes growth in wisdom. Perhaps in this sense the wisdom can be taught. I think that this teaching should have a larger intellectual element than has been customary in what has been thought of as moral instruction. I think that the
disastrous result of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who fed them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. Knowledge and morals ought not to be too much separated. It is true that the kind of specialized knowledge which is required for various kinds of skills has very little to do with wisdom. But it should be supplemented in education by wider surveys calculated to put it in its place in the totality of human activities. Even the best technicians should also be good citizens, i.e. citizens of the world and not of any one nation.
With every increase of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary for every such increase augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our capacity for evil, if our purposes are unwise. The world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before; and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now.

correct answer:-2

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions:

"There are several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion; the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have no time to consider the effect which your discoveries or invention may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death-rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take aneven more spectacular example, which is in everybody's mind at the present time- you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for
knowledge and incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge. Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, certain awareness of ends of human life. This may be illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness, since it started from earliest time and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year A.D. 400 down to his own time, Germany had been the most important nation and the standard bearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men/ women whose knowledge is wide but those feelings are narrow. Such men / women lack what I am calling wisdom. I think the essence of wisdom is emancipation, as far as possible, from the tyranny of the here and the now. We cannot help the egoism of our senses. Sight, sound and touch are bound up with our own bodies and cannot be made impersonal. Our emotions start similarly from ourselves. An infant feels hunger or discomfort; gradually with the years his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings
become less personal and less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom. This is of course a matter of degree. No one can view the world with complete impartiality; however, it is possible to make a continual approach towards impartiality, on the one hand, by knowing things somewhat remote in time or space, and, on the other hand, by giving to such things their due weight in our feelings. It is this approach towards impartiality that constitutes growth in wisdom. Perhaps in this sense the wisdom can be taught. I think that this teaching should have a larger intellectual element than has been customary in what has been thought of as moral instruction. I think that the
disastrous result of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who fed them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. Knowledge and morals ought not to be too much separated. It is true that the kind of specialized knowledge which is required for various kinds of skills has very little to do with wisdom. But it should be supplemented in education by wider surveys calculated to put it in its place in the totality of human activities. Even the best technicians should also be good citizens, i.e. citizens of the world and not of any one nation.
With every increase of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary for every such increase augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our capacity for evil, if our purposes are unwise. The world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before; and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now.

correct answer:-3

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions:

"There are several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion; the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have no time to consider the effect which your discoveries or invention may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death-rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take aneven more spectacular example, which is in everybody's mind at the present time- you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for
knowledge and incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge. Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, certain awareness of ends of human life. This may be illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness, since it started from earliest time and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year A.D. 400 down to his own time, Germany had been the most important nation and the standard bearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men/ women whose knowledge is wide but those feelings are narrow. Such men / women lack what I am calling wisdom. I think the essence of wisdom is emancipation, as far as possible, from the tyranny of the here and the now. We cannot help the egoism of our senses. Sight, sound and touch are bound up with our own bodies and cannot be made impersonal. Our emotions start similarly from ourselves. An infant feels hunger or discomfort; gradually with the years his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings
become less personal and less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom. This is of course a matter of degree. No one can view the world with complete impartiality; however, it is possible to make a continual approach towards impartiality, on the one hand, by knowing things somewhat remote in time or space, and, on the other hand, by giving to such things their due weight in our feelings. It is this approach towards impartiality that constitutes growth in wisdom. Perhaps in this sense the wisdom can be taught. I think that this teaching should have a larger intellectual element than has been customary in what has been thought of as moral instruction. I think that the
disastrous result of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who fed them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. Knowledge and morals ought not to be too much separated. It is true that the kind of specialized knowledge which is required for various kinds of skills has very little to do with wisdom. But it should be supplemented in education by wider surveys calculated to put it in its place in the totality of human activities. Even the best technicians should also be good citizens, i.e. citizens of the world and not of any one nation.
With every increase of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary for every such increase augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our capacity for evil, if our purposes are unwise. The world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before; and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now.

correct answer:-2

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions:

"There are several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion; the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have no time to consider the effect which your discoveries or invention may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death-rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take aneven more spectacular example, which is in everybody's mind at the present time- you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for
knowledge and incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge. Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, certain awareness of ends of human life. This may be illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness, since it started from earliest time and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year A.D. 400 down to his own time, Germany had been the most important nation and the standard bearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men/ women whose knowledge is wide but those feelings are narrow. Such men / women lack what I am calling wisdom. I think the essence of wisdom is emancipation, as far as possible, from the tyranny of the here and the now. We cannot help the egoism of our senses. Sight, sound and touch are bound up with our own bodies and cannot be made impersonal. Our emotions start similarly from ourselves. An infant feels hunger or discomfort; gradually with the years his horizon widens, and, in proportion as his thoughts and feelings
become less personal and less concerned with his own physical states, he achieves growing wisdom. This is of course a matter of degree. No one can view the world with complete impartiality; however, it is possible to make a continual approach towards impartiality, on the one hand, by knowing things somewhat remote in time or space, and, on the other hand, by giving to such things their due weight in our feelings. It is this approach towards impartiality that constitutes growth in wisdom. Perhaps in this sense the wisdom can be taught. I think that this teaching should have a larger intellectual element than has been customary in what has been thought of as moral instruction. I think that the
disastrous result of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who fed them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. Knowledge and morals ought not to be too much separated. It is true that the kind of specialized knowledge which is required for various kinds of skills has very little to do with wisdom. But it should be supplemented in education by wider surveys calculated to put it in its place in the totality of human activities. Even the best technicians should also be good citizens, i.e. citizens of the world and not of any one nation.
With every increase of knowledge and skill, wisdom becomes more necessary for every such increase augments our capacity of realizing our purposes, and therefore augments our capacity for evil, if our purposes are unwise. The world needs wisdom as it has never needed it before; and if knowledge continues to increase, the world will need wisdom in the future even more than it does now.

correct answer:-3

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following Passage and answer the questions below:

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in the early 1990s as a component of the Uruguay Round negotiation. However, it could have been
negotiated as part of the Tokyo Round of the 1970's, since that negotiation was an attempt at a ‘constitutional reform’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Or it could have been put off to the future, as the US government wanted. What factors led to the creation of the WTO in the early 1990s? One factor was the pattern of multilateral bargaining that developed late in the Uruguay Round. Like all complex international agreements, the WTO was a product of a series of trade-offs between principal actors and groups. For the United States, which did not want a new organization, the dispute settlement part of the WTO package achieved its long-standing goal of a more effective and more legal dispute settlement system.

For the Europeans, who by the 1990s had come to view GATT dispute settlement less in political terms and more as a regime of legal obligations, the WTO package was acceptable as a means to discipline the resort to unilateral measures by the United States. Countries like Canada and other middle and smaller trading partners were attracted by the expansion of a rules based system and by the symbolic value of a trade organization, both of which inherently support the weak against the strong. The developing countries were attracted due to the provisions banning unilateral measures. Finally, and perhaps most important, many countries at the Uruguay Round came to put a higher priority on the export gains than on the import losses that the negotiation would produce, and they came to associate the WTO and a rules-based system with those gains. This reasoning replicated in many countries - was contained in U.S. Ambassador Kantor’s defense of the WTO, and it amounted to a recognition that international
trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rules-based environment.

A second factor in the creation of the WTO was pressure from lawyers and the legal process. The dispute settlement system of the WTO was seen as a victory of legalists over pragmatists but the matter went deeper than that. The GATT, and the WTO, are contract organizations based on rules, and it is inevitable that an organization created to further rules will in turn be influenced by the legal process. Robert Hudec has written of the ‘momentum of legal development’, but what is this precisely? Legal development can be defined as promotion of the technical legal values of consistency, clarity (or, certainty) and effectiveness; these are values that those responsible for administering any legal system will seek to maximize. As it played out in the WTO, consistency meant integrating under one roof the whole lot of separate agreements signed under GATT auspices; clarity meant removing ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions or to undertake waivers; and
effectiveness meant eliminating exceptions arising out of grandfather-rights and resolving defects in dispute settlement procedures and institutional provisions.

Concern for these values is inherent in any rules based system of co-operation, since without these values, rules would be meaningless in the first place. Rules, therefore, create their own incentive for fulfillment. The momentum of legal development has occurred in other institutions besides the GATT, most notably in the European Union (EU).

Over the past two decades, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently rendered decisions that have expanded incrementally the EU’s internal market, in which the doctrine of ‘mutual recognition’ handed down in the case Cassis de Dijon was a key turning point. The Court is now widely recognized as a major player in European integration, even though arguably such a strong role was not originally envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, which initiated the current European Union. One means the Court used to expand integration was the ‘teleological method of interpretation’ whereby the actions of member states were evaluated against ‘the accomplishment of the most elementary community goals set forth in the Preamble to the [Rome] treaty.

The teleological method represents an effort to keep current policies consistent with stated goals, and it is analogous to the effort in GATT to keep contracting party trade practices consistent with stated rules. In both cases legal concerns and procedures are an independent force for further co-operation. In large part, the WTO was an exercise in consolidation. In the context of a trade negotiation that created a near-revolutionary expansion of international trade rules, the formation of the WTO was a deeply conservative act needed to ensure that the benefits of the new rules would not be lost. The WTO was all about institutional structure and dispute settlement, these are the concerns of conservatives and not revolutionaries, which is why lawyers and legalists took the lead on these issues. The WTO codified the GATT institutional practice that had developed by custom over three decades, and it incorporated a new dispute settlement system that was necessary to keep both old and new rules from becoming a sham. Both the international structure and the dispute settlement system were necessary to preserve and enhance the integrity of the multilateral trade regime that had been built incrementally from the 1940s to the 1990s.

correct answer:-2

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following Passage and answer the questions below:

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in the early 1990s as a component of the Uruguay Round negotiation. However, it could have been
negotiated as part of the Tokyo Round of the 1970's, since that negotiation was an attempt at a ‘constitutional reform’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Or it could have been put off to the future, as the US government wanted. What factors led to the creation of the WTO in the early 1990s? One factor was the pattern of multilateral bargaining that developed late in the Uruguay Round. Like all complex international agreements, the WTO was a product of a series of trade-offs between principal actors and groups. For the United States, which did not want a new organization, the dispute settlement part of the WTO package achieved its long-standing goal of a more effective and more legal dispute settlement system.

For the Europeans, who by the 1990s had come to view GATT dispute settlement less in political terms and more as a regime of legal obligations, the WTO package was acceptable as a means to discipline the resort to unilateral measures by the United States. Countries like Canada and other middle and smaller trading partners were attracted by the expansion of a rules based system and by the symbolic value of a trade organization, both of which inherently support the weak against the strong. The developing countries were attracted due to the provisions banning unilateral measures. Finally, and perhaps most important, many countries at the Uruguay Round came to put a higher priority on the export gains than on the import losses that the negotiation would produce, and they came to associate the WTO and a rules-based system with those gains. This reasoning replicated in many countries - was contained in U.S. Ambassador Kantor’s defense of the WTO, and it amounted to a recognition that international
trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rules-based environment.

A second factor in the creation of the WTO was pressure from lawyers and the legal process. The dispute settlement system of the WTO was seen as a victory of legalists over pragmatists but the matter went deeper than that. The GATT, and the WTO, are contract organizations based on rules, and it is inevitable that an organization created to further rules will in turn be influenced by the legal process. Robert Hudec has written of the ‘momentum of legal development’, but what is this precisely? Legal development can be defined as promotion of the technical legal values of consistency, clarity (or, certainty) and effectiveness; these are values that those responsible for administering any legal system will seek to maximize. As it played out in the WTO, consistency meant integrating under one roof the whole lot of separate agreements signed under GATT auspices; clarity meant removing ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions or to undertake waivers; and
effectiveness meant eliminating exceptions arising out of grandfather-rights and resolving defects in dispute settlement procedures and institutional provisions.

Concern for these values is inherent in any rules based system of co-operation, since without these values, rules would be meaningless in the first place. Rules, therefore, create their own incentive for fulfillment. The momentum of legal development has occurred in other institutions besides the GATT, most notably in the European Union (EU).

Over the past two decades, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently rendered decisions that have expanded incrementally the EU’s internal market, in which the doctrine of ‘mutual recognition’ handed down in the case Cassis de Dijon was a key turning point. The Court is now widely recognized as a major player in European integration, even though arguably such a strong role was not originally envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, which initiated the current European Union. One means the Court used to expand integration was the ‘teleological method of interpretation’ whereby the actions of member states were evaluated against ‘the accomplishment of the most elementary community goals set forth in the Preamble to the [Rome] treaty.

The teleological method represents an effort to keep current policies consistent with stated goals, and it is analogous to the effort in GATT to keep contracting party trade practices consistent with stated rules. In both cases legal concerns and procedures are an independent force for further co-operation. In large part, the WTO was an exercise in consolidation. In the context of a trade negotiation that created a near-revolutionary expansion of international trade rules, the formation of the WTO was a deeply conservative act needed to ensure that the benefits of the new rules would not be lost. The WTO was all about institutional structure and dispute settlement, these are the concerns of conservatives and not revolutionaries, which is why lawyers and legalists took the lead on these issues. The WTO codified the GATT institutional practice that had developed by custom over three decades, and it incorporated a new dispute settlement system that was necessary to keep both old and new rules from becoming a sham. Both the international structure and the dispute settlement system were necessary to preserve and enhance the integrity of the multilateral trade regime that had been built incrementally from the 1940s to the 1990s.

correct answer:-2

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following Passage and answer the questions below:

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in the early 1990s as a component of the Uruguay Round negotiation. However, it could have been
negotiated as part of the Tokyo Round of the 1970's, since that negotiation was an attempt at a ‘constitutional reform’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Or it could have been put off to the future, as the US government wanted. What factors led to the creation of the WTO in the early 1990s? One factor was the pattern of multilateral bargaining that developed late in the Uruguay Round. Like all complex international agreements, the WTO was a product of a series of trade-offs between principal actors and groups. For the United States, which did not want a new organization, the dispute settlement part of the WTO package achieved its long-standing goal of a more effective and more legal dispute settlement system.

For the Europeans, who by the 1990s had come to view GATT dispute settlement less in political terms and more as a regime of legal obligations, the WTO package was acceptable as a means to discipline the resort to unilateral measures by the United States. Countries like Canada and other middle and smaller trading partners were attracted by the expansion of a rules based system and by the symbolic value of a trade organization, both of which inherently support the weak against the strong. The developing countries were attracted due to the provisions banning unilateral measures. Finally, and perhaps most important, many countries at the Uruguay Round came to put a higher priority on the export gains than on the import losses that the negotiation would produce, and they came to associate the WTO and a rules-based system with those gains. This reasoning replicated in many countries - was contained in U.S. Ambassador Kantor’s defense of the WTO, and it amounted to a recognition that international
trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rules-based environment.

A second factor in the creation of the WTO was pressure from lawyers and the legal process. The dispute settlement system of the WTO was seen as a victory of legalists over pragmatists but the matter went deeper than that. The GATT, and the WTO, are contract organizations based on rules, and it is inevitable that an organization created to further rules will in turn be influenced by the legal process. Robert Hudec has written of the ‘momentum of legal development’, but what is this precisely? Legal development can be defined as promotion of the technical legal values of consistency, clarity (or, certainty) and effectiveness; these are values that those responsible for administering any legal system will seek to maximize. As it played out in the WTO, consistency meant integrating under one roof the whole lot of separate agreements signed under GATT auspices; clarity meant removing ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions or to undertake waivers; and
effectiveness meant eliminating exceptions arising out of grandfather-rights and resolving defects in dispute settlement procedures and institutional provisions.

Concern for these values is inherent in any rules based system of co-operation, since without these values, rules would be meaningless in the first place. Rules, therefore, create their own incentive for fulfillment. The momentum of legal development has occurred in other institutions besides the GATT, most notably in the European Union (EU).

Over the past two decades, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently rendered decisions that have expanded incrementally the EU’s internal market, in which the doctrine of ‘mutual recognition’ handed down in the case Cassis de Dijon was a key turning point. The Court is now widely recognized as a major player in European integration, even though arguably such a strong role was not originally envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, which initiated the current European Union. One means the Court used to expand integration was the ‘teleological method of interpretation’ whereby the actions of member states were evaluated against ‘the accomplishment of the most elementary community goals set forth in the Preamble to the [Rome] treaty.

The teleological method represents an effort to keep current policies consistent with stated goals, and it is analogous to the effort in GATT to keep contracting party trade practices consistent with stated rules. In both cases legal concerns and procedures are an independent force for further co-operation. In large part, the WTO was an exercise in consolidation. In the context of a trade negotiation that created a near-revolutionary expansion of international trade rules, the formation of the WTO was a deeply conservative act needed to ensure that the benefits of the new rules would not be lost. The WTO was all about institutional structure and dispute settlement, these are the concerns of conservatives and not revolutionaries, which is why lawyers and legalists took the lead on these issues. The WTO codified the GATT institutional practice that had developed by custom over three decades, and it incorporated a new dispute settlement system that was necessary to keep both old and new rules from becoming a sham. Both the international structure and the dispute settlement system were necessary to preserve and enhance the integrity of the multilateral trade regime that had been built incrementally from the 1940s to the 1990s.

correct answer:-1

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following Passage and answer the questions below:

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in the early 1990s as a component of the Uruguay Round negotiation. However, it could have been
negotiated as part of the Tokyo Round of the 1970's, since that negotiation was an attempt at a ‘constitutional reform’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Or it could have been put off to the future, as the US government wanted. What factors led to the creation of the WTO in the early 1990s? One factor was the pattern of multilateral bargaining that developed late in the Uruguay Round. Like all complex international agreements, the WTO was a product of a series of trade-offs between principal actors and groups. For the United States, which did not want a new organization, the dispute settlement part of the WTO package achieved its long-standing goal of a more effective and more legal dispute settlement system.

For the Europeans, who by the 1990s had come to view GATT dispute settlement less in political terms and more as a regime of legal obligations, the WTO package was acceptable as a means to discipline the resort to unilateral measures by the United States. Countries like Canada and other middle and smaller trading partners were attracted by the expansion of a rules based system and by the symbolic value of a trade organization, both of which inherently support the weak against the strong. The developing countries were attracted due to the provisions banning unilateral measures. Finally, and perhaps most important, many countries at the Uruguay Round came to put a higher priority on the export gains than on the import losses that the negotiation would produce, and they came to associate the WTO and a rules-based system with those gains. This reasoning replicated in many countries - was contained in U.S. Ambassador Kantor’s defense of the WTO, and it amounted to a recognition that international
trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rules-based environment.

A second factor in the creation of the WTO was pressure from lawyers and the legal process. The dispute settlement system of the WTO was seen as a victory of legalists over pragmatists but the matter went deeper than that. The GATT, and the WTO, are contract organizations based on rules, and it is inevitable that an organization created to further rules will in turn be influenced by the legal process. Robert Hudec has written of the ‘momentum of legal development’, but what is this precisely? Legal development can be defined as promotion of the technical legal values of consistency, clarity (or, certainty) and effectiveness; these are values that those responsible for administering any legal system will seek to maximize. As it played out in the WTO, consistency meant integrating under one roof the whole lot of separate agreements signed under GATT auspices; clarity meant removing ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions or to undertake waivers; and
effectiveness meant eliminating exceptions arising out of grandfather-rights and resolving defects in dispute settlement procedures and institutional provisions.

Concern for these values is inherent in any rules based system of co-operation, since without these values, rules would be meaningless in the first place. Rules, therefore, create their own incentive for fulfillment. The momentum of legal development has occurred in other institutions besides the GATT, most notably in the European Union (EU).

Over the past two decades, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently rendered decisions that have expanded incrementally the EU’s internal market, in which the doctrine of ‘mutual recognition’ handed down in the case Cassis de Dijon was a key turning point. The Court is now widely recognized as a major player in European integration, even though arguably such a strong role was not originally envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, which initiated the current European Union. One means the Court used to expand integration was the ‘teleological method of interpretation’ whereby the actions of member states were evaluated against ‘the accomplishment of the most elementary community goals set forth in the Preamble to the [Rome] treaty.

The teleological method represents an effort to keep current policies consistent with stated goals, and it is analogous to the effort in GATT to keep contracting party trade practices consistent with stated rules. In both cases legal concerns and procedures are an independent force for further co-operation. In large part, the WTO was an exercise in consolidation. In the context of a trade negotiation that created a near-revolutionary expansion of international trade rules, the formation of the WTO was a deeply conservative act needed to ensure that the benefits of the new rules would not be lost. The WTO was all about institutional structure and dispute settlement, these are the concerns of conservatives and not revolutionaries, which is why lawyers and legalists took the lead on these issues. The WTO codified the GATT institutional practice that had developed by custom over three decades, and it incorporated a new dispute settlement system that was necessary to keep both old and new rules from becoming a sham. Both the international structure and the dispute settlement system were necessary to preserve and enhance the integrity of the multilateral trade regime that had been built incrementally from the 1940s to the 1990s.

correct answer:-4

---

Instruction for set 1:

Read the following Passage and answer the questions below:

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was created in the early 1990s as a component of the Uruguay Round negotiation. However, it could have been
negotiated as part of the Tokyo Round of the 1970's, since that negotiation was an attempt at a ‘constitutional reform’ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Or it could have been put off to the future, as the US government wanted. What factors led to the creation of the WTO in the early 1990s? One factor was the pattern of multilateral bargaining that developed late in the Uruguay Round. Like all complex international agreements, the WTO was a product of a series of trade-offs between principal actors and groups. For the United States, which did not want a new organization, the dispute settlement part of the WTO package achieved its long-standing goal of a more effective and more legal dispute settlement system.

For the Europeans, who by the 1990s had come to view GATT dispute settlement less in political terms and more as a regime of legal obligations, the WTO package was acceptable as a means to discipline the resort to unilateral measures by the United States. Countries like Canada and other middle and smaller trading partners were attracted by the expansion of a rules based system and by the symbolic value of a trade organization, both of which inherently support the weak against the strong. The developing countries were attracted due to the provisions banning unilateral measures. Finally, and perhaps most important, many countries at the Uruguay Round came to put a higher priority on the export gains than on the import losses that the negotiation would produce, and they came to associate the WTO and a rules-based system with those gains. This reasoning replicated in many countries - was contained in U.S. Ambassador Kantor’s defense of the WTO, and it amounted to a recognition that international
trade and its benefits cannot be enjoyed unless trading nations accept the discipline of a negotiated rules-based environment.

A second factor in the creation of the WTO was pressure from lawyers and the legal process. The dispute settlement system of the WTO was seen as a victory of legalists over pragmatists but the matter went deeper than that. The GATT, and the WTO, are contract organizations based on rules, and it is inevitable that an organization created to further rules will in turn be influenced by the legal process. Robert Hudec has written of the ‘momentum of legal development’, but what is this precisely? Legal development can be defined as promotion of the technical legal values of consistency, clarity (or, certainty) and effectiveness; these are values that those responsible for administering any legal system will seek to maximize. As it played out in the WTO, consistency meant integrating under one roof the whole lot of separate agreements signed under GATT auspices; clarity meant removing ambiguities about the powers of contracting parties to make certain decisions or to undertake waivers; and
effectiveness meant eliminating exceptions arising out of grandfather-rights and resolving defects in dispute settlement procedures and institutional provisions.

Concern for these values is inherent in any rules based system of co-operation, since without these values, rules would be meaningless in the first place. Rules, therefore, create their own incentive for fulfillment. The momentum of legal development has occurred in other institutions besides the GATT, most notably in the European Union (EU).

Over the past two decades, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently rendered decisions that have expanded incrementally the EU’s internal market, in which the doctrine of ‘mutual recognition’ handed down in the case Cassis de Dijon was a key turning point. The Court is now widely recognized as a major player in European integration, even though arguably such a strong role was not originally envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, which initiated the current European Union. One means the Court used to expand integration was the ‘teleological method of interpretation’ whereby the actions of member states were evaluated against ‘the accomplishment of the most elementary community goals set forth in the Preamble to the [Rome] treaty.

The teleological method represents an effort to keep current policies consistent with stated goals, and it is analogous to the effort in GATT to keep contracting party trade practices consistent with stated rules. In both cases legal concerns and procedures are an independent force for further co-operation. In large part, the WTO was an exercise in consolidation. In the context of a trade negotiation that created a near-revolutionary expansion of international trade rules, the formation of the WTO was a deeply conservative act needed to ensure that the benefits of the new rules would not be lost. The WTO was all about institutional structure and dispute settlement, these are the concerns of conservatives and not revolutionaries, which is why lawyers and legalists took the lead on these issues. The WTO codified the GATT institutional practice that had developed by custom over three decades, and it incorporated a new dispute settlement system that was necessary to keep both old and new rules from becoming a sham. Both the international structure and the dispute settlement system were necessary to preserve and enhance the integrity of the multilateral trade regime that had been built incrementally from the 1940s to the 1990s.

correct answer:-3