 For Daily Job Alert |
Join Our Whats App Channel |
| For Free Study Material |
Join Our Telegram Channel |
Directions(1-10): In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each five words are suggested, one of which fits the blanks appropriately. Find out the appropriate words.
Universal basic income (UBI) schemes are getting a lot of attention these days. Of course, the idea – to provide all legal residents of a country a (1) sum of cash unconnected to work – is not new. The philosopher Thomas More advocated it back in the sixteenth century, and many others, including Milton Friedman on the right and John Kenneth Galbraith on the left, have promoted (2) of it over the years. But the idea has lately been gaining much more traction, with some regarding it as a solution to today‘s technology-driven economic (3) . Can it work?
The appeal of a UBI is rooted in three key features: it provides a basic social ―floor to all citizens; it lets people choose how to use that support; and it could help to (4) the bureaucracy on which many social-support programs depend. A UBI would also be totally ―portable,‖ thereby helping citizens who change jobs frequently, cannot depend on a long-term employer for social insurance, or are self-employed.
Viewing a UBI as a (5) means to limit poverty, many on the left have made it part of their program. Many libertarians like the concept, because it enables – (6) , requires – recipients to choose freely how to spend the money. Even very wealthy people sometimes support it, because it would enable them to go to bed knowing that their taxes had finally and efficiently (7) extreme poverty.
The UBI concept also appeals to those who focus on how economic development can replace at least some of the inkind aid that is now given to the poor. Already, various local social programs in Latin America contain elements of the UBI idea, though they are targeted at the poor and usually conditional on certain behavior, such as having children regularly attend school.
But implementing a full-blown UBI would be difficult, not least because it would require answering a number of complex questions about goals and priorities. Perhaps the most obvious balancing act relates to how much money is actually delivered to each citizen (or legal resident).In the United States and Europe, a UBI of, say, $2,000 per year would not do much, except perhaps (8) the most extreme poverty, even if it was added to existing social-welfare programs. An UBI of $10,000 would make a real difference; but, depending on how many people qualify, that could cost as much as 10% or 15% of GDP – a huge fiscal outlay, particularly if it came on top of (9) social programs. Even with a significant increase in tax revenue, such a high basic income would have to be packaged with gradual reductions in some existing public spending – for example, on unemployment benefits, education, health, transportation, and housing – to be fiscally (10) . The system that would ultimately take shape would depend on how these components were balanced.
1. 1) irregular
2) enormous
3) particular
4) standard
5) different
2. 1) espouse
2) oneself to
3) commence
4) address
5) variants
3. 1) endeavors
2) disruptions
3) acquired
4) aggregations
5) embraced
4. 1) scatter
2) append
3) streamline
4) decentralize
5) annex
5. 1) attempted
2) straightforward
3) devious
4)adopt
5) deceitful
6. 1) fragile
2) abandon
3) vague
4) dubitably
5) indeed
7. 1) existed
2) dispersed
3) doubtedly
4) eradicated
5) alived
8. 1) aggravate
2) retain
3) embrace
4) alleviate
5) magnify
9. 1) relinquishment
2) relenting
3) existing
4) yielding
5) renunciation
10. 1) feasible
2) cessation
3) capitulation
4) acquiescence
5) unreasonable
Directions(11-20): In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each five words are suggested, one of which fits the blanks appropriately. Find out the appropriate words.
Well before financial year 2017-18 begins, the Lok Sabha has signed off on the Budget with the passage of the Finance Bill of 2017. It includes multiple amendments proposed by the government that did not figure in Arun Jaitley‘s speech of February 1, either in letter or in spirit. For instance, while the speech (11) 420 words to proposed measures to improve transparency in electoral funding, amendments have been made to the Companies Act of 2013 that actually turn the clock back on existing disclosure (12) . Till now, companies could only contribute up to 7.5% of their average net profits in the past three financial years to political parties. They were required to disclose in their profit and loss accounts the amount of contributions and the names of political parties to which they were made. The (13) has now been dropped, paving the way for a firm to (14) unlimited capital into political coffers irrespective of its own financial and operational health. Companies would still have to reveal the (15) of their financing of parties, but no longer have to name their (16) parties. For the sake of argument, one could say the 7.5% limit was (17) and restricted willing and able corporate donors‘ ability to influence political activity. But doing away with the limit makes firms (18) to funding ‗requests‘ from local, regional or national political formations while taking away excuses — such as it being a loss-making unit, or breaching the funding cap. This would open up new opportunities in crony capitalism. Pressure could be (19) on a company awaiting government clearances, or a loan restructuring from public or cooperative sector financiers. Even a publicly listed company can set up subsidiaries just to fund parties. This removes any pretence of transparency in the process as the donor will not have to disclose who he paid; the recipient has no such obligation either. It is not surprising that India Inc. has remained stoically silent so far. This abandonment of the 7.5% requisite comes in (20) with the proposal to float electoral bonds to give anonymity to political donors.
11. 1) dislocated
2) luxate
3) devoted
4) detachded
5) disjoin
12. 1) altered
2) discrepant
3) divergent
4) standards
5) deviating
13. 1) awning
2) ceiling
3) divers
4) contradistinct
5) tenting
14. 1) deploy
2) antithetic
3) diverse
4) variance
5) tarpaulin
15. 1) contrastive
2) extent
3) clashing
4) contrasting
5) inside
16. 1) preferred
2) repudiate
3) reprobate
4) contrary
5) disdain
17. 1) scorn
2) despise
3) disregard
4) distinct
5) arbitrary
18. 1) rebuff
2) susceptible
3) sneeze at
4) contemn
5) contradistinctive
19. 1) disown
2) exerted
3) traverse
4) confront
5) brush off
20. 1) tandem
2) diacritic
3) discrete
4) distinct
5) secluded
