- DI & DS
- English Language
-
Intelligence & CR
- Alphabet & Number Ranking
- Analytical Reasoning
- Blood Relations Test
- Coding - Decoding
- Comparision of Ranks
- Direction Sense Test
- Mathematical Operation / Number Puzzles
- Series
- Sitting Arrangement
- Statement and Arguement
- Statement and Conclusion
- Statement and Course of Action
- Statement-Assumption
- Syllogism
-
Mathematical Skills
- Average
- Calender
- Clocks
- Geometry
- Height and Distance
- Logarithms
- Mensuration
- Mixtures and Alligations
- Number System
- Percentage
- Permutation and Computation
- Probability
- Profit and Loss
- Ratio and Proportion
- Set Theory
- Simple calculations
- Simple Equations
- Simple Interest and Compound Interest
- Time and Work
- Time, Speed and Distance
-
13.
Now I want to return to the phenomena about which, partly by chance and partly through Mayo, I had become curious and with which, partly by reinforcement and partly by choice I decided to stick. I call this episode my discovery of life space. When I was in philosophy, I was more interested in the "true" than in the "real," the "good," or the "beautiful." To use traditional subdivisions of philosophy, I was more interested in epistemology (what makes knowledge knowledge) than in metaphysics (what makes the real real), or ethics (what makes the good good), or aesthetics (what makes the beautiful beautiful). These sixty-four dollar questions I decided to consider no longer -- at least not until I retired. Mayo told me that philosophy was a good subject to engage in at the beginning and end of one's life. In the middle years, he said, one should live it.
One epistemological distinction still meant a great deal to me. This was the one David Hume made between two kinds of knowledge: one that referred to "relations of ideas" and the other to "matters of fact". Analytical propositions, as they were called in philosophy, such as "The sage is wise," belonged to the first kind. In such propositions, the predicate (wise) was contained in the subject (sage), so that nothing new had been added; they were true apart from experience and thus constituted a priori knowledge. Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, such as "The rose is red" belonged to the second kind of knowledge. In such propositions the predicate (red) was not contained in the subject (rose). Their truth was contingent upon experience and could not be known apart from experience; they constituted a posteriori knowledge.
Although it was this distinction that had led to Hume's scepticism about knowledge and Kant's resolution of it, I felt it was important to maintain this distinction without having to accept wholly either Hume's or Kant's epistemological conclusions. The distinction, it seemed to me, neither cast a giant shadow on the status of a posteriori synthetic propositions, as Hume thought, nor did it require the possibility of a priori propositions in order to get out of this dilemma, as Kant thought. Hence, in the best fashion of the day, that is, in terms of the newly emerging analytic philosophy of Whitehead and Russell, I put the propositions of both logic and mathematics in the class of a priori analytic knowledge and the proposition of common sense and science in the class of a posteriori synthetic knowledge. The criterion for the truth of propositions in, the first class was logical consistency; the criterion for the truth of propositions in the second class was some correspondence with the phenomena, a matter, which could not be settled apart from verification by observation.
However, I did not keep these two kinds of propositions-analytical and synthetic-totally unrelated. It seemed to me that the development of scientific knowledge required both kinds of propositions so long as they were differentiated from and related to each other. At the time, I was not too clear what this relationship was. It seemed to me that the question was going to be settled by experience, not philosophical dogma. In this case, experience seemed to me to mean having something to do with convenience and utility as well as observation. Thus, I had three different notions of the truth in the back of my mind: (1) the notion of consistency, (2) the notion of correspondence to the phenomena, and (3) the notion of convenience and utility. In matters about truth I was a bit of a logician, a bit of a positivist, and a bit of a pragmatist, and so I have remained for the rest of my life. For to me now the question no longer was which one of these truths was absolute; it was how these different notions about truth worked together to produce knowledge. As the search for an answer to this question lurked behind the scenes throughout my career, I want to describe how it began in my counselling activities with students. When I started interviewing students, I conceived of my mission partly as a research project and partly as a counselling service to them. Helping them was important to me but not my sole objective. I was also interested in the preoccupations of the students and the uniformities I felt I saw in them. These became the phenomena about which I became curious and which I wanted to understand.
The readings that I have previously mentioned helped me. Both Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud had influenced Mayo. In talking about obsession or compulsion neurosis (Mayo, following Janet, used the word obsession) Mayo contrasted and related the two men's approaches to psychopathology. He felt that Janet described the phenomena better, whereas Freud showed their historical determination. That is to say, Freud was more concerned with how the obsessive's thinking got that way, whereas Janet was concerned with its present form. The researches of Janet on mental illness are of course much less well known than those of Freud. Janet's most important books (1909, 1919, and 1921) have not been translated into English, although Psychological Healing (1925) has been. Mayo wrote a book in 1948 about Janet's work.
As a result, I was somewhat of a maverick in interviewing students; that is, I used the most general ideas underlying the conceptual schemes of both Janet and Freud. I concentrated first on the nature of a student's preoccupations here and now; only if I thought it necessary did I explore his personal history to see what may have influenced him in his present direction. This seemed to me the natural course that most interviews took anyway. Many times I would state the form of the student's preoccupations in Janet's terms; I hardly ever stated the dynamics in Freudian terms. Here I felt I was following the principle of doing the least harm-a principle upon which, as Mayo and Henderson told me again and again, the practice of medicine was based.
I also found Janet's concepts more congenial than Freud's, because during this period I was anti-metaphysical. Freud's way of thinking seemed to me to have too many metaphysical entities circling around in it. I felt that I could study a person's preoccupations and concerns without having to posit an unconscious. Moreover, much of the "wild" psychoanalytical talk that certain circles indulged in at that time I found distasteful. I was going to stay as close to the phenomena as I could and become well acquainted with them before seeking too quickly for any explanation of them. In constantly comparing Janet and Freud, Mayo performed an inestimable service for me. Although annoying at times - because of course I was still bothered about who was right - the comparison prevented me from going off half-cocked. I had to try to make sense out of both positions. It could be said that I experimented with Freud's ideas more upon myself than upon my students. I underwent psychoanalysis for a period of six months after which my analyst died; he had been analysed by both Freud and Jung (and at this period in Boston they were tops). I did not continue with anyone else.
[1] Which of the following is not a true statement?
(1) The author of the passage was analysed neither by Freud nor by Jung
(2) The author of the passage did not compare Mayo and Freud
(3) Janet and Freud were compared by Mayo
(4) The author constantly compared Janet and Freud[2] According to the passage, which of the following sub-division of philosophy deals with knowledge?
(1) Ontology
(2) Aesthetics
(3) Epistemology
(4) None of these[3] According to the passage,
(1) Mayo was influenced by Russell and Whitehead
(2) The author was not influenced by Janet and Freud
(3) The author was influenced by Janet and Freud
(4) Mayo was influenced neither by Janet nor by Freud[4] Which of the following is not a true statement?
(1) "Analytical propositions" refer to the 'relations of ideas'
(2) "Analytical propositions" constitute 'a priori knowledge'
(3) "Synthetic propositions" refer to the 'relations of facts'
(4) "Synthetic propositions" constitute 'a priori knowledge'[5] According to the author,
(1) The same person can be a positivist, a logician and a pragmatist at the same time.
(2) The same person can never be a positivist, a logician and a pragmatist at the same time.
(3) Few people can be a positivist, a logician and a pragmatist at the same time.
(4) Some people do not want to be a positivist, a logician and a pragmatist at the same time.[6] The author of the passage is
(1) a follower of Kant
(2) a follower of Hume
(3) a critique of Hume and Kant
(4) neither a critique nor a follower of Kant or Humeasked in FMS
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
14.
What do we mean by fear? Fear of what? There are various types of fear and we need not analyse every type. But we can see that fear comes into being when our comprehension of relationship is not complete. Relationship is not only between people but between ourselves and nature, between ourselves and property, between ourselves and ideas; as long as that relationship is not fully understood, there must be fear. Life is relationship. To be is to be related and without relationship there is no life. Nothing can exist in isolation, so long as the mind is seeking isolation, there must be fear. Fear is not an abstraction; it exists only in relation to something.
The question is, how to be rid of fear? First of all, anything that is overcome has to be conquered again and again. No problem can be finally overcome, conquered; it can be understood but not conquered. They are two completely different processes and the conquering process leads to further confusion, further fear. To resist, to dominate, to do battle with a problem or to build a defense against it is only to create further conflict, whereas if we can understand fear, go into it fully step by step, explore the whole content of it, then fear will never return in any form.
As I said, fear is not an abstraction; it exists only in relationship. What do we mean by fear? Ultimately we are afraid, are we not?, of not being, of not becoming. Now, when there is fear of not being, of not advancing, or fear of the unknown, of death, can that fear be overcome by determination, by a conclusion, by any choice? Obviously not. Mere suppression, sublimation, or substitution, creates further resistance, does it not? Therefore fear can never be overcome through any form of discipline, through any form of resistance. That fact must be clearly seen, felt and experienced: fear cannot be overcome through any form of defense or resistance nor can there be freedom from fear through the search for an answer or through mere intellectual or verbal explanation.
Now what are we afraid of? Are we afraid of a fact or of an idea about the fact? Are we afraid of the thing as it is, or are we afraid of what we think it is? Take death, for example. Are we afraid of the fact of death or of the idea of death? The fact is one thing and the idea about the fact is another. Am I afraid of the word 'death' or of the fact itself? Because I am afraid of the word, of the idea, I never understand the fact, I never look at the fact, I am never in direct relation with the fact. It is only when I am in complete communion with the fact that there is no fear. If I am not in communion with the fact, then there is fear, and there is no communion with the fact so long as I
have an idea, an opinion, a theory, about the fact, so I have to be very clear whether I am afraid of the word, the idea or of the fact. If I am face to face with the fact, there is nothing to understand about it: the fact is there, and I can deal with it. If I am afraid of the word, then I must understand the word, go into the whole process of what the word, the term, implies.
For example, one is afraid of loneliness, afraid of the ache, the pain of loneliness. Surely that fear exists because one has never really looked at loneliness, one has never been in complete communion with it. The moment one is completely open to the fact of loneliness one can understand what it is, but one has an idea, an opinion about it, based on previous knowledge; it is this idea, opinion, this previous knowledge about the fact, that creates fear. Fear is obviously the outcome of naming, of terming, of projecting a symbol to represent the fact; that is fear is not independent of the word, of the term.
I have a reaction, say, to loneliness; that is I say I am afraid of being nothing. Am I afraid of the fact itself or is that fear awakened because I have previous knowledge of the fact, knowledge being the word, the symbol, the image? How can there be fear of a fact? When I, am face to face with a fact, in direct communion with it, I can look at it? observe it; therefore there is no fear of the fact. What causes fear is my apprehension about the fact, what the fact might be or do.
It is my opinion, my idea, my experience, my knowledge about the fact, that creates fear. So long as there is verbalization of the fact, giving the fact a name and therefore identifying or condemning it, so long as thought is judging the fact as an observer, there must be fear. Thought is the product of the past, it can only exist through verbalization, through symbols, through images; so long as thought is regarding or translating the fact, there must be fear.
Thus it is the mind that creates fear, the mind being the process of thinking. Thinking is verbalization. You cannot think without words, without symbols, images; these images, which are the prejudices, the previous knowledge, the apprehensions of the mind, are projected upon the fact, and out of that there arises fear. There is freedom from fear only when the mind is capable of looking at the fact without translating it without giving it a name, a label. This is quite difficult, because the feelings, the reactions, the anxieties that we have, are promptly identified by the mind and given a word. The feeling of jealousy is identified by that word. Is it possible not to identify a feeling, to look at that feeling without naming it? It is the naming of the feeling that gives it continuity that gives it strength. The moment you give a name to that which you call fear, you strengthen it; but if you can look at that feeling without terming it, you will see that it withers away. Therefore if one would be completely free of fear it is essential to understand this whole process of terming, of projecting symbols, images, giving names to facts.
[1] Which statement best expresses the meaning of fear as explained in the passage?
(1) Fear is experienced because we do not form and understand relationships
(2) Fear occurs in the mind and needs to be confronted
(3) Fear is caused when we engage more closely with ideas about a fact, than with trying to understand the fact
(4) Fear is an act of suppression of an understanding of facts[2] Human beings are victims of ............................... because of which they experience fear.
(Choose an option to fill the blank)
(1) Conditioning
(2) Deconditioning
(3) Suppression
(4) Isolation[3] We can eradicate fear if we do any one of the following:
(1) Verbalize and think about the fact that causes fear
(2) Look at the fact that causes fear and experience it fully
(3) Withhold judgments about a fact or situation while experiencing it
(4) Do all of above[4] Which set of key words, when put to practice will help us overcome fear?
(1) Minimise: suppression, sublimation, substitution
(2) Avoid: naming, terming, projecting facts
(3) Build: relationships, understanding, judgment of facts
(4) Engage in: communion, experiencing facts, withholding judgment
[5] Which of the following can be concluded from the passage?
(1) As long as there is any relationship, there must be fear of losing it
(2) As long as our thoughts can identify and judge a fact as an observer, there would be no fear
(3) Previous knowledge about a fact hinders dealing with the fact when it arrives
(4) Fear can be best diminished by fighting it and building a defense against it[6] Which of the following can be concluded from the passage?
(1) If one is in complete communion with a fact, there is little chance of fear
(2) Ideas of a fact aid us in making a communication with the fact.
(3) Fear is a feeling that is independent of the tag or the symbol representing the fact
(4) None of the above[7] Which of the following can be concluded from the passage?
(1) Fear can be overcome by conquering it once and for all
(2) Fear of unknown can be overcome by determined resistance
(3) Freedom of fear can be achieved by a simple intellectual explanation of the phenomenon
(4) None of the aboveasked in FMS
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
15.
The importance of finance and of a productive economic base which created revenues for the state was already clear to Renaissance princes. The rise of the ancient regime monarchies of the eighteenth century, with their large military establishments and fleets of warships, simply increased the government's need to nurture the economy and to create financial institutions which could raise and manage the monies concerned. Moreover, like the First World War, conflicts such as the seven major Anglo-French wars fought between 1689 and 1815 were struggles of endurance. Victory therefore went to the Power-or better, since both Britain and France usually had allies, to the Great Power coalition with the greater capacity to maintain credit and to keep on raising supplies. The mere fact that these were coalition wars increased their duration, since a belligerent whose resources were fading would look to a more powerful ally for loans and reinforcements in order to keep itself in the fight. Given such expensive and exhausting conflicts, what each side desperately required was-to use the old aphorism-"money, money, and yet more money." It was this need which formed the background to what has-been termed the "financial revolution” of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries when certain western European states evolved a relatively sophisticated system of banking and credit in, order to pay for their wars.
There was, it is true, a second and nonmilitary reason for the financial changes of this time. That was the chronic shortage of specie, particularly in the years before the gold discoveries in Portuguese Brazil in 1693. The more European commerce with the Orient developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the greater the outflow of silver to cover the trade imbalances, causing merchants and dealers everywhere complain of the scarcity of coin. In addition, the steady increases in European commerce, especially in essential products such as cloth and naval stores, together with the tendency for the seasonal fairs of medieval Europe to be replaced by permanent centers of exchange, led to a growing regularity and predictability of financial settlements and thus to the greater use of bills of exchange and notes of credit. In Amsterdam especially, but also in London. Lyons, Frankfurt, and other cities, there arose a whole cluster of moneylenders, commodity dealers, goldsmiths (who often dealt in loans), bill merchants, and jobbers in the share of the growing number of joint-stock companies. Adopting banking practices which were already in evidence in Renaissance Italy, these individuals and financial houses steadily created. a structure of national and international credit to under-pin the early modern world economy.
Nevertheless, by far the largest and most sustained boost to the "financial revolution" in Europe was given by war. If the difference between the financial burdens of the age of the Philip II and that of Napoleon was one of degree, it still was remarkable enough. The cost of a sixteenthcentury war could be measured in millions of pounds; by the late seventeenth century, it had risen to tens of millions of pounds; and at the close of the Napoleonic War the outgoings of the major combatants occasionally reached a hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Whether these prolonged and frequent clashes between the Great Powers, when translated into economic terms, were more of a benefit to than a brake upon the commercial and industrial rise of the west can be never be satisfactorily resolved. The answer depends, to a great extent, upon whether one is trying to assess the absolute growth of a country as opposed to its relative prosperity-and strength before: and after a lengthy conflict. What is clear is that even the most thriving and "modern" of the eighteenth-century states - could not immediately pay for the wars of this period out of their ordinary revenue. Moreover, vast rises in taxes, even if the machinery existed to collect them, could well provoke domestic unrest, which all regimes feared especially when facing foreign challengers at the same time.
Consequently, the only way a government could finance a war adequately was by borrowing: by selling bonds and offices, or better, negotiable long-term stock paying interest to all who advanced monies to the state: Assured of an inflow of funds, officials could then authorize payments to army contractors, provision merchants, shipbuilders, and the armed services themselves. In many respects, this two-way system of raising and simultaneously spending vast sums of money acted like a bellows, fanning the development of western capitalism and of the nation-state itself.
Yet however natural all this may appear to later eyes, it is important to stress that the success of such a system depended an two critical factors reasonably efficient machinery far raising loans, and the maintenance of a government's “credit" in the financial market. In both provinces led the way not surprisingly, since the merchants there were part of the government and desired to see the affairs of state managed according to the same principles of financial rectitude as applied in, say, a joint-stock company. It was therefore appropriate that the States General of the Netherlands, which efficiently and regularly raised the taxes to cover governmental expenditures, was able to set interest rates very law, thus keeping dawn debt repayments. This system, superbly reinforced by the many financial activities of the city of Amsterdam, soon gave the United Provinces an international reputation far clearing bills, exchanging currency, and providing credit, which naturally created a structure and an atmosphere within which long-"term funded state debt could be regarded as perfectly normal. So successfully did Amsterdam became a center of Dutch "surplus capital" that it soon was able to invest in stock of foreign companies and, most important of all, to subscribe to a whole variety of loans floated by foreign governments, especially in wartime.
[1] During the three decades from sixteenth century to eighteenth century war expenditure increased:
(1) Hundredfold
(2) Tenfold
(3) Twofold
(4) Exponentially[2] Which geographical regions are referred to by “United Provinces” in the passage:
(1) Spain, Netherland and Italy
(2) Prussia, England and France
(3) Seven provinces which united in 1579 and formed the basis of Republic of Netherland
(4) The treaty of Baltimore united England with Spain and Netherland in 1579[3] Which statement is true with regard to the background to the Financial Revolution in Europe:
(1) To mitigate public unrest caused by excessive expenditure on war, the governments in various European countries invented the financial system
(2) The need for more and more money to wage enduring, expensive and exhausting wars in Europe gave rise to the financial revolution
(3) Borrowing money from the public became an attractive measure for appeasing people and getting money for wars in the governments coffers
(4) All the statements are correct[4] Which set of countries formed the “Great Powers” in Europe during the period from sixteenth century till late eighteenth century:
(1) Spain, Netherland, Germany
(2) France, Britain, Spain, Germany
(3) France, Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia
(4) Britain, France, Prussia and Russia[5] What is the key reason for the growth of Western Capitalism during the reference period in the passage:
(1) Expensive wars gave rise to entrepreneurship in Europe that paved way for the industrial revolution
(2) Paying large interest on money borrowed from the public fuelled the capitalist revolution in Europe
(3) The reasonably efficient machinery for raising loans and maintenance of government‟s “credit” in the financial market fuelled growth
(4) The two-way systems of raising and simultaneously spending vast sums of money fanned the development of Western Capitalism[6] Why was Amsterdam successful in investing in foreign companies during the period when all of Europe was weighed down by excessive expenditure in war?
(1) The United Provinces was efficient in dealing with public and government transactions and this created an atmosphere where long term investments were considered normal
(2) Amsterdam per se was never involved in any of the wars the European nations were engaged in, and therefore had surplus capital to invest
(3) The merchants in Amsterdam were also government officials and they ensured that all transactions between people and government were mutually beneficial, as is the case in a joint-venture.
(4) All statements are correct[7] What is the opinion of experts regarding Europe‟s economic health during the period of reference in the passage:
(1) Experts are still not sure whether the economic health was good or bad in Europe during the period
(2) In absolute terms there was definitely a lot of economic loss, but in relative terms there was a gain
(3) Keeping a long term perspective, the period of reference let to good economic health in Europe, even though the state did spend a lot on wars
(4) None of the statements is trueasked in FMS
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
16.
The relationship between competition and innovation has been the subject of some debate. Some argue that in a competitive situation any enterprise can earn only normal profit and therefore no enterprise would have the resources for undertaking meaningful research and development. They believe that only an enterprise earning monopoly profit would be able to accumulate the resources needed for it. However, the counter-argument is that though a monopolist may have the resources for innovation, it does not have the motivation to do so in the absence of any competitive pressure. On the other hand, the prospect of monopoly profit is an incentive for innovation. Schumpeter argues that even if existing monopolists earn such profits in the short run, in due course outsiders would enter the market and erode the monopoly. In his view, therefore shortterm monopoly power need not cause concern.
This brings us to the interface between competition law and IPR. A debate rages here as well. An IPR, such as a patent or a copyright, confers a monopoly on the IPR holder for a given period of time. Since a monopoly right is prone to abuse, tension arises between the IPR and competition law, one conferring a monopoly, the other wary of it. At the fundamental level, competition law does not challenge the IPR itself; it respects IPR as being necessary for rewarding innovation, for providing an incentive to others, particularly competitors, to innovate or to improve existing innovation and, equally importantly, to bring into the public arena innovations that might otherwise remain only in the private domain. Without the protection offered by IPR, others would be able to free ride on the innovation and the innovator would not be able to secure returns on his investment.
The concern that competition authorities have regarding IPR is not in the inherent right itself, but in the manner of the exercise of that right, whether restrictions e being introduced that go beyond the protection of the IPR and result in throttling competition. Usually these concerns arise in the licensing of the IPR by the holder thereof. Thus, the two legal systems at a fundamental level have commonality of goals, but at the operational level, particularly in the short run, 3 two systems can seem to be pulling in different directions and the interface 1 become difficult to manage.
In this knowledge era, technological advances are exploding. The quantum of w knowledge 01' new technology added in the last few decades alone might perhaps be more than in the entire history of mankind. The role of technological advances in our lives and in business is now immense. This is, particularly true areas like biotechnology, medicine, information technology and communications technology. Correspondingly, the number of patents, copyrights and other forms [PR has also grown in geometrical progression. This makes the issue of managing interface more difficult but equally more important and pressing than ever before. In competition law, it has emerged as one of the most important areas demanding attention from-competition authorities, governments and regulators.
IPRs have certain special economic characteristics:
1. The fixed costs in producing intellectual property are typically high requiring substantial investment in research facilities and scientific talent.
2. The risk in these investments is also high as many research products may turn out to be unfruitful.
3. Though costly to produce, intellectual property can be easily copied or misappropriated and the marginal costs in doing so are very low.
4. Intellectual property often depends upon other intellectual property for its successful
commercial exploitation.
These characteristics explain an IPR holder's special concerns for protecting his It by incorporating conditions and restraints that would ensure his property cot copied. For example, some of the restrictions are cross-licensing agreements, tying, exclusive dealing and exclusive territories.
On the other hand, there are practices or constraints which are not directly required for protecting IPR and restrict competition in unjustifiable ways. Some of the objectionable practices are patent pooling, grant back, refusal to deal, payment of royalty after expiry of patent period, condition that the licensee will not challenge the validity of IPR and using tie-in by the IPR holder to gain access in other product markets.
In some merger cases where the merged parties are the only two having IPR over the same product, the competition authority's concern is that this could lead to market power in the hands of the merged parties in that product market. For example, in the merger of Ciba-Geigy with Sandoz, the two were among the very few entities capable of commercially developing a broad range of gene therapy products. The competition authority agreed not to block the merger only after the merging parties agreed to certain compulsory licensing conditions. Similarly with Glaxo and Welcome: both had products in the US' Food and Drug Administration approval process for treating migraine with an oral dosage; the competition authority had difficulty in agreeing without conditions that would mitigate the merged parties' market power.
[1] Which of the following statements is false regarding the relationship between competition and Intellectual Property Right (IPR)?
(1) Cross-licensing agreements protect the IPR holder against free riders of innovation
(2) Mergers and acquisitions increase the risk of creating monopolists in the area of an
innovation
(3) Monopolists have the money and motivation to engage in research and development
(4) At the fundamental level competition law does not challenge IPR[2] Which set of risks are most relevant to developing intellectual property for a commercial organization?
(1) cost, redundancy, imitation, cross dependence
(2) investment, free riders, monopoly, mergers
(3) cost, exclusive dealing, tying, patent pooling
(4) all of the above are risks
[3] Which statement alludes to the inherent contradiction between IPR and competition?
(1) IPR confers monopoly to the holder and this encourages others to innovate as they do not have access to a particular intellectual property
(2) IPR creates monopolies and this reduces competition in the market
(3) IPR inhibits competition in the long term perspective
(4) All are correct[4] For competition authorities which is one of the most difficult responsibility to fulfil:
(1) Encourage small players in the market to innovate
(2) Create suitable regulations so that IPR holder does not abuse market power owned
(3) Create suitable regulatory mechanism to mitigate two merged IPR holders acquired market power
(4) Deal with the malpractice of patent pooling and grant back[5] Some malpractices that are linked to IPR are:
(1) Piracy, Plagiarization, Copyright
(2) Hoarding, Misrepresentation, Trespassing
(3) Piracy, Hoarding, Copyright
(4) Plagiarization, Piracy, Trespassing[6] To which ideological framework does the concept of IPR belong to:
(1) Capitalism
(2) Socialism
(3) Free economy
(4) License Raj[7] GATT/WTO and TRIPS agreement encourages:
(1) Biodiversity
(2) Biopiracy
(3) Genetic engineering
(4) All threeasked in FMS
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
17.
I urge a 16th amendment, because "manhood suffrage", or a man's government, is civil, religious, and social disorganization. The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike, discord, disorder, disease, and death. See what a record of blood and cruelty the pages of history reveal! Through what slavery, slaughter and sacrifice, through what inquisitions and imprisonments pains and persecutions, black codes and gloomy creeds, the soul of humanity has struggled for centuries, while mercy has veiled her face and all hearts have been dead alike to love and hope!
The male element has held high carnival thus far; it has fairly run riot from the beginning, overpowering the feminine element everywhere, crushing out all the diviner qualities in human nature, until we know but little of true manhood and womanhood, of the latter comparatively nothing, for it has scarce been recognized as a power until within the last century. Society is but the reflection of man himself, untempered by woman's thought; the hard iron rule we feel alike in the church, the state and the home. No one need wonder at the disorganization, at the fragmentary condition of everything, when we remember that man, who represents but half a complete being, with but half an idea on every subject, has undertaken the absolute control of all sublunary matters.
People object to the demands of those whom they choose to call the strong-minded, because they say "the right of suffrage will make the women masculine". That is the difficulty in which we are involved today. Though disfranchised, we have few women in the best sense; we have simply so many reflections, varieties and dilutions of the masculine gender. The strong, natural characteristics of womanhood are repressed and ignored in dependence, for so long as man feeds woman she will try to please the giver and adapt herself to his condition. To keep a foothold in society, woman must be as near like man as possible, reflect his ideas, opinions, virtues, motives, prejudices and vices. She must respect his statutes, though they strip her of every inalienable right and conflict with that higher law written by the finger of God on her own soul.
She must look at everything from its dollar-and-cent point of view, or she is a mere romancer. She must accept things as they are and make the best of them. To mourn over the miseries of others, the poverty of the poor, their hardships in jails, prisons, asylums, the horrors of war, cruelty, and brutality in every form, all this would be mere sentimentalizing. To protest against the intrigue, bribery, and corruption of public life, to desire that her sons might follow some business that did not involve lying, cheating and, a hard, grinding selfishness would be arrant nonsense.
In this way man has been moulding woman to his ideas by direct and positive influences, while she, if not a negation, has used indirect means to control him, and in most cases developed the very characteristics both in him and herself that needed repression. And now man himself stands appalled at the results of his own excesses, and mourns in bitterness that falsehood, selfishness and violence are the law of life. The need of this hour is not territory, gold mines, railroads or specie payments but a new evangel of womanhood, to exalt purity, virtue, morality, true religion, to lift man up into the higher realms of thought and action.
We ask woman's enfranchisement, as the first step toward the recognition of that essential element in government that can only secure the health, strength and prosperity of the nation. Whatever is done to lift woman to her true position will help to usher in a new day of peace and perfection for the race.
In speaking of the masculine element, I do not wish to be understood to say that all men are hard, selfish and brutal, for many of the most beautiful spirits the world has known have been clothed with manhood; but I refer to those characteristics, though often marked in woman, that distinguish what is called the stronger sex. For example, the love of acquisition and conquest, the very pioneers of civilization, when expended on the earth, the sea, the elements, the riches and forces of nature, are powers of destruction when used to subjugate one man to another or to sacrifice nations to ambition.
Here that great conservator of woman's love, if permitted to assert itself, as it. naturally would in freedom against oppression, violence and war, would hold all these destructive forces in check, for woman knows the cost of life better than man does, and not with her consent, would one drop of blood ever be shed, one life sacrificed in vain.
[1] This is an extract of the speech given by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1868 at Women's suffrage convention in Washington D.C. What should be the title of the speech?
(1) The Destructive Male
(2) The Power of Womanhood
(3) Woman Enfranchisement and a Better World
(4) Resurrection of Women[2] Which cluster best represents the masculine values portrayed in the passage:
(1) Individualism, Materialism, Aggrandizement, and Violence
(2) Egoism, Competition, Materialism, Greed
(3) Violence, Immorality, Competition, Anger
(4) All of the options[3] According to the passage why are women subjugated to men?
(1) Women do not have voting rights
(2) Women do not have economic power
(3) Women are intrinsically weak
(4) Both options (1) and (2) are correct[4] Which cluster portrays values of womanhood alluded to in the passage:
(1) Love, Life, Compassion
(2) Purity, Virtue, Morality
(3) Sentiments, Divinity, Forgiveness
(4) Both options (1) and (2) are correct[5] The author of the speech is:
(1) A Feminist
(2) A Man-hater
(3) An Activist
(4) A Mysogynist[6] According to the passage which statement is correct:
(1) Men are destructive and selfish and women try to clone male qualities in order to survive
(2) Men destroy and women preserve.
(3) Subjugation of women has caused societies to become cruel, selfish and destructive
(4) Women are like nature, who always try to balance[7] What is the key inference that we can make from the passage:
(1) Female values which are life sustaining have got annihilated
(2) Male values are not balanced by female values
(3) Unchecked and untempered male values have caused destruction and misery in the world
(4) All inferences are correctasked in FMS
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
18.
The driving force of evolution, according to the emerging new theory, is not to be found in the chance events of random mutations but in life's inherent tendency to create novelty, in the spontaneous emergence of increasing complexity and order. Once this fundamental new insight has been understood, we can then ask: What are the avenues in which evolution's creativity expresses itself?
The answer to this question comes not only from molecular biology but also, and even more importantly, from microbiology, from the study of the planetary web of the myriads of microorganisms that were the only forms of life during the first two billion years of evolution. During those two billion years, bacteria continually transformed the Earth's surface and atmosphere and, in so doing, invented all of life's essential biotechnologies, including fermentation, photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation, respiration, and rotary devices for rapid motion.
During the past three decades, extensive research in microbiology has revealed three major avenues of evolution. The first, but least important, is the random mutation of genes, the centerpiece of neo-Darwinian theory. Gene mutation is caused by a chance error in the selfreplication of DNA, when the two chains of the DNA's double helix separate and each of them serves as a template for the construction of a new complementary chain.
It has been estimated that those chance errors occur at a rate of about one per several hundred million cells in each generation. This frequency does not seem to be sufficient to explain the evolution of the great diversity of life forms, given the well-known fact that most mutations are harmful, and only very few result in useful variations.
In the case of bacteria the situation is different, because bacterium divides so rapidly. Fast bacteria can divide about every twenty minutes, so that in principle several billion individual bacteria can be generated from a single cell in less than a day. Because of this enormous' rate of reproduction, a single successful bacterial mutant can spread rapidly through its environment, and mutation is indeed an important evolutionary avenue for bacteria.
However, bacteria have developed a second avenue of evolutionary creativity that is vastly more effective than random mutation. They freely pass hereditary traits from one to another in a global exchange network of incredible power and efficiency. Here is how Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan describe it:
"Over the past fifty years or so, scientists have observed that [bacteria] routinely and rapidly transfer different bits of genetic material to other individuals. Each bacterium at any given time has the use of accessory genes, visiting from sometimes very different strains, which perform functions that its own DNA may not cover. Some of the genetic bits are recombined with the cell's native genes; others are passed on again. As a result of this ability, all the world's bacteria essentially have access to a single gene pool and hence to the adaptive mechanisms of the entire bacterial kingdom. "
This global trading of genes, technically known as DNA recombination, must rank as one of the most astonishing discoveries of modern biology. 'If the genetic properties of the microcosm were applied to larger creatures, we would have a science-fiction world,' write Margulis and Sagan, 'in which green plants could share genes for photosynthesis with nearby mushrooms, or where people could- exude perfumes; or grow ivory by picking up genes from a rose or a walrus.'
The speed with which drug resistance spreads among bacterial communities is dramatic proof that the .efficiency of their communications network is vastly superior to that of adaptation through mutations. Bacteria are able to adapt to environmental changes in a few years where larger organisms would need thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation. Thus microbiology teaches us the sobering lesson that technologies like genetic engineering and a global communications network, which we consider to be advanced achievements of our modern civilization, have been used by the planetary web of bacteria for billions of years to regulate life on Earth.
The constant trading of genes among bacteria results in an amazing variety of genetic structures besides their main strand of DNA. These include the formation of viruses, which are not full autopoietic systems but consist merely of a stretch of DNA or RNA in a protein coating. In fact, Canadian bacteriologist Sorin Sonea has argued that bacteria, strictly speaking, should not be classified into species, since all of their strains can potentially share hereditary traits and, typically, change up to fifteen percent of their genetic material on a daily basis. 'A bacterium is not a unicellular organism,' writes Sonea, 'it is an incomplete cell belonging to different chimeras according to circumstances. In other words, all bacteria are part of a single microcosmic web of life'.
[1] If all human beings started behaving like bacteria, which of the following would be the most desired outcome by all humanity:
(1) Creativity and innovation will increase
(2) Greater unity in diversity
(3) Population increase
(4) We shall become identical to each other and be free of conflict[2] Which three processes are responsible for evolution:
(1) Random mutation; Rapid division of genes in bacteria; Genes exchange in bacteria
(2) Random exchange of genes in bacteria; Speedy multiplication of bacteria; Creative mutation
(3) DNA self replication; Autopoieses; Gene pool theory
(4) Chance separation of double helix; Autopoiesis; Random selection
[3] Regarding diseases caused by bacteria and virus and their eradication by medical science
which conclusion is valid?
(1) Medical science generally remains ahead of bacteria and virus
(2) Bacteria and virus are generally ahead of medical science
(3) Bacteria and virus are not only ahead, but manage to undo something that medical science have achieved
(4) Bacteria and virus, and medical science are equal[4] Which statement is true regarding the work that bacteria do for the cause of humanity:
(1) Bacteria invented many essential biotechnologies that sustain life
(2) Bacteria challenge human beings to innovate
(3) Bacteria can give important lessons to human beings about sharing and communicating
(4) All the above work are important for the cause of humanity[5] Which philosophical paradigm does the model of creativity in evolution as described in the passage derives from:
(1) Holistic world view
(2) Descartes, Darwin, Newton
(3) Ecological framework
(4) Deep Ecology[6] What are the reasons given in the passage against the theory of “random mutation”, with respect to explaining evolution?
(1) Random mutation is a slow process
(2) Most of the times random mutation is harmful for the organism
(3) Random mutation is not possible in smaller organisms
(4) (1) and (2) are correct[7] Which principle described in the passage can become the basis of science fiction:
(1) DNA recombination
(2) DNA recombination among large organism
(3) DNA recombination among very small organism
(4) Autopoietic system
asked in FMS
View Comments [0 Reply]