Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.
 Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
 The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
 Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.           

What prompted leaders throughout the world to take action to boost the agriculture sector in 2008?

Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.
 Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
 The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
 Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.           

Which of the following factors was/were responsible for the neglect of the farming sector after the Green Revolution?
 
 A. Steel and cement sectors generated more revenue for the government as compared to agriculture
 
 B. Large-scale protests against favouring agriculture at the cost of other important sectors such as education and health care
 
 C. Attention of policy makers and aid organisations was diverted from agriculture to other sectors

Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.
 Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
 The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
 Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.           

What is the author trying to convey through the phrase making the government 7 % GDP growth target look a bit rich ?

Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.
 Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
 The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
 Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.           

Which of the following is an adverse impact of the Green Revolution?

Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.
 Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
 The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
 Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.           

What is the author’s main objective in writing the passage?

Direction :Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
 The Emperor had inherited a peaceful and prosperous kingdom at a young age after the untimely death of his father. A few months later a man arrived at court. He stated that he was from a far off land and had the gift of foresight. He impressed the Emperor with his witty remarks and was appointed a courtier. The Emperor and those at court all enjoyed hearing accounts of his travels. One day the newly appointed minister said, "Your Majesty, you are destined to great things. It is written in the stars. I have learnt the art of fortune telling. Do not be content with your kingdom along. Travel, See the world and conquer. There are many who are oppressed. They will bless you for rescuing them from the tyranny of their rulers." The Emperor was stunned to hear this but he refused to discuss the matter at the time. The courtiers too were astonished to hear this and began debating among themselves. "It is true," they said, "Our Emperor's father was a great warrior and he ruled wisely. Perhaps there is truth in this." So the newly appointed courtier shrewdly planted the idea of waging war against other kingdoms at court. After hearing several repeated arguments in favour of this idea the Emperor finally agreed. He was a young man and a battle seemed to be exciting against a smaller neighbouring kingdom The Emperor knew the ruler was cruel and felt justified in waging war against him. Having the superior army the easily defeated the king. Everyone celebrated. But the campaign did not stop there. With every victory the new minister would urge the Emperor on to the next battle. The soldiers grew tired after over two years at war but did not complain out of respect and loyalty to their ruler. Meanwhile the situation in his kingdom began to deteriorate. With no one to look after the daily administration and to resolve disputes, signs of neglect began to be seen.
The Emperor was no longer bothered if he wars. The new minister who was in charge of these funds kept a large part for himself and grew richer. An old man who had been a minister in the Emperor's father's court grew worried and decided to do something about this situation. A few days later when the Emperor was out riding in the forest he suddenly saw the old man. He greeted him like an old friends and inquired what he was doing there. The man pointed to two owls in the trees. "I am listening to their conversation". What are they saying?" the Emperor asked unbelieving. "They are negotiating the marriage of their children. The first owl wants to know wheter the other will be gifting his daughter fifty villages on her would have to gift her one hundred and fifty as the villages were in ruins and as such were worthless but with the Emperor as ruler there would be many such villages." When the Emperor heard this he realized the error of his ways. He returned home immediately, rewarded the old minister putting him in charge of reconstructing the ruined villages and dismissed the fortune teller from his court. 

Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage. 
BOTHERED 

Direction :Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
 The Emperor had inherited a peaceful and prosperous kingdom at a young age after the untimely death of his father. A few months later a man arrived at court. He stated that he was from a far off land and had the gift of foresight. He impressed the Emperor with his witty remarks and was appointed a courtier. The Emperor and those at court all enjoyed hearing accounts of his travels. One day the newly appointed minister said, "Your Majesty, you are destined to great things. It is written in the stars. I have learnt the art of fortune telling. Do not be content with your kingdom along. Travel, See the world and conquer. There are many who are oppressed. They will bless you for rescuing them from the tyranny of their rulers." The Emperor was stunned to hear this but he refused to discuss the matter at the time. The courtiers too were astonished to hear this and began debating among themselves. "It is true," they said, "Our Emperor's father was a great warrior and he ruled wisely. Perhaps there is truth in this." So the newly appointed courtier shrewdly planted the idea of waging war against other kingdoms at court. After hearing several repeated arguments in favour of this idea the Emperor finally agreed. He was a young man and a battle seemed to be exciting against a smaller neighbouring kingdom The Emperor knew the ruler was cruel and felt justified in waging war against him. Having the superior army the easily defeated the king. Everyone celebrated. But the campaign did not stop there. With every victory the new minister would urge the Emperor on to the next battle. The soldiers grew tired after over two years at war but did not complain out of respect and loyalty to their ruler. Meanwhile the situation in his kingdom began to deteriorate. With no one to look after the daily administration and to resolve disputes, signs of neglect began to be seen.
The Emperor was no longer bothered if he wars. The new minister who was in charge of these funds kept a large part for himself and grew richer. An old man who had been a minister in the Emperor's father's court grew worried and decided to do something about this situation. A few days later when the Emperor was out riding in the forest he suddenly saw the old man. He greeted him like an old friends and inquired what he was doing there. The man pointed to two owls in the trees. "I am listening to their conversation". What are they saying?" the Emperor asked unbelieving. "They are negotiating the marriage of their children. The first owl wants to know wheter the other will be gifting his daughter fifty villages on her would have to gift her one hundred and fifty as the villages were in ruins and as such were worthless but with the Emperor as ruler there would be many such villages." When the Emperor heard this he realized the error of his ways. He returned home immediately, rewarded the old minister putting him in charge of reconstructing the ruined villages and dismissed the fortune teller from his court. 

Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage. 

FAVOUR 

Direction :Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
 The Emperor had inherited a peaceful and prosperous kingdom at a young age after the untimely death of his father. A few months later a man arrived at court. He stated that he was from a far off land and had the gift of foresight. He impressed the Emperor with his witty remarks and was appointed a courtier. The Emperor and those at court all enjoyed hearing accounts of his travels. One day the newly appointed minister said, "Your Majesty, you are destined to great things. It is written in the stars. I have learnt the art of fortune telling. Do not be content with your kingdom along. Travel, See the world and conquer. There are many who are oppressed. They will bless you for rescuing them from the tyranny of their rulers." The Emperor was stunned to hear this but he refused to discuss the matter at the time. The courtiers too were astonished to hear this and began debating among themselves. "It is true," they said, "Our Emperor's father was a great warrior and he ruled wisely. Perhaps there is truth in this." So the newly appointed courtier shrewdly planted the idea of waging war against other kingdoms at court. After hearing several repeated arguments in favour of this idea the Emperor finally agreed. He was a young man and a battle seemed to be exciting against a smaller neighbouring kingdom The Emperor knew the ruler was cruel and felt justified in waging war against him. Having the superior army the easily defeated the king. Everyone celebrated. But the campaign did not stop there. With every victory the new minister would urge the Emperor on to the next battle. The soldiers grew tired after over two years at war but did not complain out of respect and loyalty to their ruler. Meanwhile the situation in his kingdom began to deteriorate. With no one to look after the daily administration and to resolve disputes, signs of neglect began to be seen.
The Emperor was no longer bothered if he wars. The new minister who was in charge of these funds kept a large part for himself and grew richer. An old man who had been a minister in the Emperor's father's court grew worried and decided to do something about this situation. A few days later when the Emperor was out riding in the forest he suddenly saw the old man. He greeted him like an old friends and inquired what he was doing there. The man pointed to two owls in the trees. "I am listening to their conversation". What are they saying?" the Emperor asked unbelieving. "They are negotiating the marriage of their children. The first owl wants to know wheter the other will be gifting his daughter fifty villages on her would have to gift her one hundred and fifty as the villages were in ruins and as such were worthless but with the Emperor as ruler there would be many such villages." When the Emperor heard this he realized the error of his ways. He returned home immediately, rewarded the old minister putting him in charge of reconstructing the ruined villages and dismissed the fortune teller from his court. 

Direction  : Choose the word which is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage. 
STUNNED