- DI & DS
- English Language
- GK
-
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
Loading
-
109.
My last growth point offers a chance to bring together the perspectives of Darwin, Marx and Freud. It leads us to the question at the foundations of the human sciences: what is basic, how amenable to change is human nature and how can we bring about more humane human relations? As I see it, all these matters come together in the problematic Marxist notion of ‘second nature’. First, nature is the biologically given domain whose boundaries have themselves never been clearly drawn and are now quite open as a result of the phenomena of pharmacology, biofeedback (in traditional and modern forms) and genetic engineering (an area in which the future is open in both positive and alarming senses). But without pushing those bundaries between the voluntary and involuntary nervous system and between mere inheritance and manipulated inheritance, we have a large scope for deep reflection and serious practice. Historians of the human sciences will know that belief in the extreme plasticity of human behaviour has been held by behaviourists, operant conditioning theorists and those thinking in the related tradition of Pavlovian conditioning. At the other extreme, behavioural geneticists and sociobiologists have held relatively pessimistic views on the potential for change in human behaviour. Moreover, the sociobiologists have made various takeover bids into ethics and the social sciences, although these seem under control for the present. There is a similar continuum on the optimism/pessimism axis among psychoanalysts. Does psychoanalysis or psychoanalytical psychotherapy change the self or merely adapt it to the inner and outer worlds? Second, nature is history experienced as if it were unmodifiable—as though it were not amenable to change through practice and enlightenment. Belief in the ability to learn through practical experience is the sine qua non of an enlightened human science, however onerous and slow the process of change. Those of us in the East and West who reached for rapid change in the nineteen-sixties, have learned a lot about the pace that one can hope for. Neurosis is a perfect example of second nature. On a larger scale, so is racism. On a still larger scale, so are capitalism and East European socialism. Beyond these in a degree of generality, lie hierarchy and patriarchy. An important desideratum for a human science is the study of the relative refractoriness to change of various aspects and levels of human nature. The writings I have found most helpful in understanding second nature are both Freudo-Marxist. They are the works of Herbert Marcuse and Russell Jacoby, although other members of the Frankfurt school, as well as the Lukacs of History and Class Consciousness, and various Hungarian philosophers, have also thought about it. Both Marcuse and Jacoby have written widely against various reductionisms—Darwinian, vulgar Marxist and biologistic Freudian. They have also essayed against extremes of voluntarism and Dionysiac Freudianism. Both have been concerned to pay due respect to biology, economics, culture and therapy, while striving for a better psychic and social order. Both have de-emphasized traditional notions of class struggle as the key to social change and have focused more clearly on cultural and other political processes. Their perspectives are complemented by the writings of Gramsci on the subtle ways in which consent is organized. In addition to his concept of hegemony, I have benefited from Raymond Williams’ writings on cultural materialism. His critique of base-superstructure model of vulgar Marxism stresses the complexity of mediation between culture on the one hand, and the production and reproduction of real life on the other. Indeed, he adds the crucial insight that culture is in the base—a material, that is, spiritual need. Raymond Williams died between the delivery and the publication of this talk. His voice—its substance and its tone—are central to my conception of humanity, and I wish to dedicate my remarks to his memory. This brings us back to basics. Look now, Darwin, Marx and Freud are mutually constitutive, Darwin brings historicity to the heart of the sciences, linking life to the earth and our humanity to both. Teleological and anthropomorphic concept lie at the basis of his concept of natural selection. Marx teaches us the historicity of all including scientific concepts, and points out that there is only one science, the science of history. Freud teaches us that all of history and culture continue to be mediated by basic human drives and that no matter how high we reach into abstractions, our thought remains rooted in primitive psychic mechanisms. It would seem, then, that our conception of human science must always draw on these three dimensions of what Marx calls our species being. The historical, conceptual and practical tasks that follow from this will surely occupy all of us at least to the retiring age. We have in these three thinkers—at first glance—biology, economics and the psyche, but looked at more closely, each takes us to history and historicity, to culture and its roots and to the question of the nature and extent of what is distinctly human—the limits, the realities, the visions, aspirations and achievements now and in the future. As I read them, each offers us a conception of the disciplined study of humanity which always retains a notion of human values in action as the central guiding conception. None will do alone while the task of integrating them in historical studies and in theory has hardly begun. Their writings span the century between about 1840 and 1940. Darwin (1809-82) and Marx (1818-83) were—how easily we forget this—near contemporaries and published their main works almost simultaneously. They died within a year of each other, just over a hundred years ago. Freud was a toddler of three years when The Origin of Species and An Introduction to Political Economy appeared in 1859. The problematic of his life’s work makes little sense without seeing both Darwin and Marx as providing the framework of ideas and aspirations about nature and human nature, which he addresses. All three are very much alive today— vivid—providing us with the terms of reference for both a realistic and a cautiously helpful view of our humanity.
[1] Which of the following is most helpful in understanding second nature?
(1) Freud and Marx
(2) Herbert Marcuse and Russel Jacoby
(3) Members of Frankfurt School
(4) Both (2) and (3)[2] Which of the following is true according to the passage?
(1) Marcuse and Jacoby rejected the role of class struggle as the key to social-change and have laid emphasis on cultural and political processes.
(2) Marcuse and Jacoby recognized the role of class struggle as the key to social-change.
(3) Marcuse and Jacoby saw the cultural and political processes as the only key to social-change.
(4) Marcuse and Jacoby recognized a lesser role of classstruggle as the key to social-change than that of the cultural and political processes.
[3] According to the passage, all of the following are not true except:
(1) Freud does not see any meeting point between history and culture.
(2) Darwin rejects the centrality of life.
(3) Freud, Marx and Darwin are not in contradiction among themselves, but they do project different perspectives.
(4) Darwin and Marx are unanimous on the role and place of history in linking life to the earth and our humanity to both.[4] Darwin, Marx and Freud all provide us the most important conception of ?
(1) historicity
(2) humanity
(3) history
(4) human sciencesasked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
110.
All men by nature, desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses : for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others, the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. By nature, animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation, memory is produced in some of them, though not in others. And therefore, the former are more intelligent and apt at learning than those which cannot remember; those which are incapable of hearing sounds are intelligent though they cannot be taught, e.g., the bee, and any other race of animals that may be like it; and those which besides memory, have this sense of hearing can be taught. The animals other than man live by appearances and memories, and have but little of connected experience; but the human race lives also by art and reasoning. Now from memory, experience is produced in men; for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience. And experience seems pretty much like science and art, but really, science and art come to men through experience; for ‘experience made art’, as Polus says, ‘but inexperience luck’. Now art arises, when from many notions gained by experience, one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced. For to have a judgement that when Callias was ill of this disease that did him good, and similarly, in the case of Socrates and in many individual cases, is a matter of experience; but to judge that it has done good to all persons of a certain constitution, marked off in one class, when they were ill of this disease, e.g., to phlegmatic or bilious people when burning with fevers—this is a matter of art. With a view to action, experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge) : and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the ‘why’ and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honourable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their function by a natural tendency, the labourers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general, it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore, we think art more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot. Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the ‘why’ of anything—e.g., why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot. At first, he who invented any art whatever, that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wiser and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence, when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt; for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure. We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience. The master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then, wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.
[1] What is the relationship between sensation and memory?
(1) All animals have sensation but some animals do not have memory.
(2) Human beings have sensation and memory both.
(3) Human beings are intelligent as they can reason, whereas animals do not have the capacity of reasoning.
(4) When sensation is remembered, it becomes a memory experience and this leads to connected experience, which in turn gives rise to reasoning.[2] What is the difference between art and experience?
(1) Art explains the cause of things together with its effects, whereas experience gives us just the effect of things, not the cause.
(2) Experience and art give rise to one another and they are complementary and supplementary to each other.
(3) Art does not give the cause and effect of things, whereas experience gives the cause and effect of things.
(4) Both experience and art are views of a contradictory time and space and this is where the difference between the two lies.[3] Why according to the author, were the mathematical arts founded in Egypt?
(1) Because they were men of experience and had wisdom and knowledge about certain principles and causes.
(2) Because the inventors of luxuries were considered more important than the inventors of necessities and in Egypt, the kingly and priestly class had developed great standards in luxurious tastes and attitudes.
(3) Because the sciences which do not cater to necessities or pleasures develop only after the previous two have been invented and only then, men have time for themselves. So was the case in Egypt where the priestly caste had ample leisure time.
(4) Because Egyptians were considered to be connoisseurs of art and crafts and had superior civilization as opposed to the other ancient civilizations.[4] Which of the following can be considered to be the central idea of the passage?
(1) “Experience made art, but inexperience luck”.
(2) What actually is “Wisdom”?
(3) Art is superior to experience.
(4) Knowledge is wisdom.asked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
111.
The lithosphere, or outer shell, of the earth is made up of about a dozen rigid plates that move with respect to one another. New lithosphere is created at mid-ocean ridges by the upwelling and cooling of magma from the earth’s in terior. Since new lithosphere is continuously being created and the earth is not expanding to any appreciable extent, the question arises : What happens to the “old” lithosphere? The answer came in the late 1960s as the last major link in the theory of sea-floor spreading and plate tectonics that has revolutionized our understanding of tectonic processes, or structural deformations, in the earth and has provided a unifying theme for many diverse observations of the earth sciences. The old lithosphere is subducted, or pushed down, into the earth’s mantle (the thick shell of red-hot rock beneath the earth’s thin, cooler crust and above its metallic, partly melted core). As the formerly rigid plate descends, it slowly heats up, and over a period of millions of years it is absorbed into the general circulation of the earth’s mantle. The subduction of the lithosphere is perhaps the most significant phenomenon in global tectonics. Subduction not only explains what happens to old lithosphere but also accounts for many of the geologic processes that shape the earth’s surface. Most of the world’s volcanoes and earthquakes are associated with descending lithospheric plates. The prominent island arcs—chains of islands such as the Aleutians, the Kuriles, the Marianas, and the islands of Japan—are surface expressions of the subduction process. The deepest trenches of the world’s oceans, including the Java and Tonga trenches and all others associated with island arcs, mark the seaward boundary of subduction zones. Major mountain belts, such as the Andes and the Himalayas, have resulted from the convergence and subduction of lithospheric plates. To understand the subduction process it is necessary to look at the thermal regime of the earth. The temperatures within the earth at first increase rapidly with depth, reaching about 1,200 degrees Celsius at a depth of 100 kilometres. Then they increase more gradually, approaching 2,000 degrees C at about 500 kilometres. The minerals in peridotite, the major constituent of the upper mantle, start to melt at about 1,200 degrees C, or typically at a depth of 100 kilometres. Under the oceans the upper mantle is fairly soft and may contain some molten material at depths as shallow as 80 kilometres. The soft region of the mantle, over which the rigid lithospheric plate normally moves, is the asthenosphere. It appears that in certain areas convection currents in the asthenosphere may drive the plates, and that in other regions the plate motions may drive the convection currents. Several factors contribute to the heating of the lithosphere as it descends into the mantle. First, heat simply flows into the cooler lithosphere from the surrounding warmer mantle. Since the conductivity of the rock increases with temperature, the conductive heating becomes more efficient with increasing depth. Second as the lithospheric slab descends it is subjected to increasing pressure, which introduces heat of compression. Third, the slab is heated by the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium and potassium, which are present in the earth’s crust and add heat at a constant rate to the descending material. Fourth, heat is provided by the energy released when the minerals in the lithosphere change to denser phases, or more compact crystal structures, as they are subjected to higher pressures during descent. Finally, heat is generated by friction, shear stresses and the dissipation of viscous motions at the boundaries between the moving lithospheric plate and the surrounding mantle. Among all these sources the first and fourth contribute the most toward the heating of the descending lithosphere.
[1] Each of the following geological phenomena is mentioned in the passage as being relevant to the subduction of the lithosphere except:
(1) principal archipelagoes
(2) significant rifts in the sea bottom
(3) Expository
(4) prominent mountain ranges[2] The style of the passage can best be described as:
(1) Oratorical
(2) Argumentative
(3) expository
(4) Meditative[3] The author is most probably addressing which of the following audiences?
(1) Geothermal researchers investigating the asthenosphere as a potential energy source.
(2) Historians of science studying the origins of plate tectonic theory.
(3) College undergraduates enrolled in an introductory course on geology.
(4) Graduate students engaged in analyzing the rate of sea-floor spreading.[4] Which of the following is not true of the heating of the lithosphere as it is described in the passage?
(1) The temperature gradient between the lithosphere and the surrounding mantle enables heat to be transferred from the latter to the former.
(2) Minerals in the lithospheric slab release heat in the course of phase changes that occur during their descent into the mantle.
(3) The more the temperature of the lithospheric slab increases, the more conductive the rock itself becomes.
(4) The further the lithospheric slab descends into the mantle, the faster the radioactive decay of elements within it adds to its heat.
asked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
112.
The nature of financial integration of developing countries with developed countries has been radically transformed over the last four years. Evidence collated by the World Bank’s annual report for 2007 on global development finance reveal a number of features of the new scenario that have far-reaching implications. The first of these is an acceleration of financial flows to developing countries precisely during the years when as a group, they have seen rising surpluses on their current account. Total flows touched a record $ 571 billion in 2006, having risen by 19 per cent on top of an average growth of 40 per cent during the three previous years. Relative to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of these countries, total flows, at 5.1 per cent, are at levels that they touched at the time of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. A second feature is the acceleration of the long-term tendency for private flows to dominate over official (bilateral and multilateral) flows. Private debt equity inflows, which had risen by 50 per cent a year over the three years ending 2005 increased by another 17 per cent in 2006 to touch a record $647 billion. On the other hand net official lending has in fact, declined over the past two years. One factor accounting for this is the failure of the Group of Seven (G-7) countries to match promises of a substantial hike in aid disbursements beyond what the retirement of the debt of few heavily indebted poor countries ensures. The other is that the more developed among developing countries have chosen to make advance repayments of debt owed to official creditors, especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Overall, principal repayments to official creditors exceeded disbursements by $70 billion in 2005 and $ 75 billion in 2006. In the event, there has been a reverse flow of capital to the World Bank and the IMF which is threatening the viability and influence of these institutions, especially the latter. However, the increase in private flows has more than matched the reverse flows to official creditors. The third feature is that the dominance of private flows has meant that both equity and debt flows to developing countries has risen rapidly with the surge being greater in the case of the former. Net private debt and equity flows to developing countries have risen from a little less than $170 billion in 2002 to close to $647 billion in 2006, an almost fourfold increase over a four year period. While net private equity flows which rose from $163 billion to $419 billion, dominated the surge, net private debt flows too increased rapidly. Bond issues rose from $10.4 billion to $49.3 billion and borrowing from international banks increased from $2.3 billion to a huge $112.2 billion. What is more, net shortterm debt, outflows of which tend to trigger financial crises, has risen from around half a billion in 2002 to $72 billion in 2006. The fourth feature, which is a corollary of these developments, is that there is a high degree of concentration of flows to developing countries, implying excess exposure in a few countries. Ten countries (out of 135) accounted for 60 per cent of all borrowing during 2002-04 and that proportion has risen subsequently to touch three-fourths in 2006. In the portfolio equity market, flows to developing countries were directed at acquiring a share in equity either through the secondary market or by buying into Initial Public Offers (IPOs). IPOs dominated in 2006 accounting for $53 billion of the $96 billion in flow. But, here too, there were signs of concentration. Four of the 10 largest IPOs were by Chinese companies, accounting for twothirds of the total IPO value. Another three of those 10 were by Russian companies, accounting for an additional 22 per cent of the IPO value. A fifth feature is that despite this rapid rise in developing country exposure, with that exposure being excessively concentrated in a few countries, the market is still overtly optimistic. Ratings upgrades dominate downgrades in the bond market. And bond market spreads are at unusual lows. This optimism indicates that risk assessments are pro-cyclical, underestimating risk when investments are booming, and overestimating risks when markets turn downwards. But, there are two consequences : the herding of investors in developing country markets and their willingness to invest in a larger volume of money in risky unrated instruments. Finally, the rapid rise in capital flows to developing countries at a time when many of them are recording large current account surpluses has substantially increased their foreign exchange reserves and triggered an outflow of capital. This outflow takes three forms : (i) investment of reserves in safe and low return instruments such as United States Treasury Bills, (ii) financing of asset acquisition to support the growing presence of leading developing country firms in global commodity markets; and (iii) financial investments in and lending to other developing countries, resulting in the South-South flow of capital. These trends together suggest that developing countries are still largely restricted to the low return or high-risk segments of global capital flow. This is the cost they bear to meet the requirements of ensuring balance in the global balance of payments. These features of the current global financial scenario can be interpreted in two ways. One is in the direction taken by the world Bank. It admits, on the one hand, that “the probability of a turn in the credit cycle” has risen and that a “Key challenge facing developing countries is to manage the transition by taking pre-emptive measures aimed at lessening the risk of a sharp, unexpected reversal in capital flows”. On the other, it downplays the dangers involved by arguing that the surge in capital flows “speaks well for the resilience of developing economies and for the ability of international financial market to manage risks”. An alternative view would be that many emerging market economies that attract a disproportionate share of these capital flows are fast approaching a situation where they are vulnerable to financial crises with the current scenario incorporating features that could make these crises more intense. What is more, it appears that prudential norms, risk management techniques and disclosure requirements that have been put in place as part of the so-called “new international financial architecture” seem inadequate to foreclose a build-up of this kind. This is not surprising since garnering large and quick profits rather than minimising risks seems to be the dominant requirement of financial institutions from the developed countries. The current situation is the inevitable result of expanding the space for financial capital through dilution or elimination of regulation. Financial liberalisation has ensured that since the late 1970s, the newly discovered “emerging markets” among developing countries have been the new frontier for profiteering by global financial institutions. Awash with the liquidity derived from the surpluses earned by oil exporters and the saving accumulated by the generation of baby-boomers in the West, banks, investment funds and pension funds were looking to new avenues for lucrative investments. The role of financial intermediaries was one of dressing up developing countries that were hitherto “untouchables” as lucrative destinations for financial capital. And financial innovation consisted in not just identifying instruments that could carry such investments but derivatives that could help hedge against the risk associated with rushing into uncharted territory. The process began when developing countries were still reeling under the effects of declining non-fuel commodity prices and rising oil prices which had left gaping holes in the current account of their balance of payments. The new found interest of global finance offered developing country governments an opportunity to finance that gap, even if it meant offering high returns to foreign financial investors. It was this conflation of interests of developing country governments and financial institutions from the developed countries that led up to the debt crisis of the 1980s and the financial crisis of the 1990s, including those that began with the East Asian crisis in 1997. One consequence of the 1997 crisis was a sharp decline in lending to developing countries. But this did not mean a decline in capital flows. Rather, encouraged by the post-crisis deflation in asset prices in emerging markets and the sharp devaluation of their currencies, foreign direct investment kept flowing into developing countries to acquire assets at rock bottom prices when measured in hard currencies. While net debt flows to developing countries declined from $53.1 billion in 1998 to just $1.2 billion in 2000, net FDI flows remained more or less stable at around $170 billion a year. Since 2002 when growth accelerated or remained high in China and India and commodity prices rose sharply in the case of oil and metals and moderately in the case of agriculture, this lull in capital flows has given way to a surge. Besides the features noted above, three kinds of developments have accompanied this surge. First, the growing importance of unregulated hedge funds looking for abnormal returns in portfolio equity markets which renders activity in those markets highly speculative and opaque. Second, the rapid increase in investments by “private equity” firms investing largely in unlisted equity— in corporations in developing countries. The size of each of these investments is such that they identified as foreign “direct” investments, even though their objective is speculative. The evidence on the controversial role played by these firms in the developed countries indicates that their activity too is extremely opaque. Third, the revival once again of the global market for developing country debt, driven this time by private corporate borrowing in the syndicated loan market. Since this new surge in credit rides on a wave of securitisation that transfers the risk associated with such lending to pension and mutual funds among others, accumulating risk does not serve as a deterrent on banks creating such credit. There are a number of implications of these tendencies. To start with, the risk associated with the current surge in capital flows can be and is much greater than it was true during previous episodes involving a similar surge. Moreover, the surge is accompanied by the growing acquisition of assets in developing countries outside the stock market with objectives that are largely speculative so that a sell-off, if it occurs would be far more widespread. And the persistence of the herd instinct has meant that the surge in fixed and portfolio investment flows has resulted in a revival of credit flows that is unbridled since it is accompanied by risk-mitigation techniques that transfer risk to those who are least equipped to assess them. Unfortunately, all of this occurs in an environment in which the target of both investment and debt flows is the private sector which makes it difficult for governments that have liberalised financial regulation to control such flows. In sum, the risks associated with the current surge in capital flows are far greater than what emerges from the World Bank’s rather sanguine assessment of the possible fall-out of the ongoing transformation of global financial flows. A turn in the investment cycle, with far-reaching implications, is real and imminent.
[1] According to the passage, which one of the following statement(s) is/are true?
(1) The current situation is the inevitable result of expanding the space for financial capital through dilution or elimination of regulation.
(2) The role of financial intermediaries was one of dressing up developing countries that were hitherto untouchables as lucrative destinations for financial capital.
(3) The new found interest of global finance offered developing country governments an opportunity to finance that gap, even if it meant offering high returns to foreign financial investors.
(4) All of these[2] Total financial flows to developing countries reached a record $571 billion in ___, having risen by nineteen per cent on top of an average growth of ___ during the previous three years.
(1) 2005, 50%
(2) 2006, 40%
(3) 2004, 22%
(4) 2002, 60%[3] The rapid rise in capital flows to developing countries has substantially increased their foreign exchange reserves and triggered an outflow of capital in the form of:
(1) financial investments in and lending to other developing countries.
(2) financing of asset acquisition to support the growing presence of leading developing country firms in global commodity markets.
(3) investment of reserves in safe and low return instruments such as United States Treasury Bills.
(4) All of these[4] Ten developing countries out of one hundred and thirty five accounted for sixty per cent of all borrowing during 2002-2004 and that proportion has risen subsequently to touch ___ in 2006:
(1) sixty per cent
(2) fifty per cent
(3) seventy five per cent
(4) forty per centasked in MAT
View Comments [0 Reply]
-
113.
-
114.