RBI Assistant – RBI Assistant Grade B 2013

In each of the following questions, a sentence/passage is given with two blank spaces. Three phrases/sentences are given below, two of which can be placed in blank spaces to make a meaningful sentence/passage. If none of the phrases/sentences is appropriate, mark e: as the answer.

We are _____ a great chemical experiment and to scientists. <br><br> A. living in the midst of<br><br> B. some serious consequences are becoming apparent<br><br> C. in threat of

In each of the following questions, a sentence/passage is given with two blank spaces. Three phrases/sentences are given below, two of which can be placed in blank spaces to make a meaningful sentence/passage. If none of the phrases/sentences is appropriate, mark e: as the answer.

The ensure _____and thus facilitate economic growth China North Korea. <br><br> A. destabilisation of a flash point<br><br> B. a stable security environment within 1 he region<br><br> C. played an active role in facilitating negotiations with

In each of the following questions, a sentence/passage is given with two blank spaces. Three phrases/sentences are given below, two of which can be placed in blank spaces to make a meaningful sentence/passage. If none of the phrases/sentences is appropriate, mark e: as the answer.

Indian corporate leaders______ global giants and market share. <br><br> A. had done well standing up<br><br> B. as their companies have grown in size<br><br> C. have done well standing up to

In each of the following questions, a sentence/passage is given with two blank spaces. Three phrases/sentences are given below, two of which can be placed in blank spaces to make a meaningful sentence/passage. If none of the phrases/sentences is appropriate, mark e: as the answer.

Every country has____ for citizens _.<br><br> A. lay down comprehensive rules<br><br> B. laid down comprehensive series of practical rules. <br><br> C. for resolving mutual contradictory rights and interests.

In each of the following questions, a sentence/passage is given with two blank spaces. Three phrases/sentences are given below, two of which can be placed in blank spaces to make a meaningful sentence/passage. If none of the phrases/sentences is appropriate, mark e: as the answer.

______that the developed world of the world's poor. <br><br> A. It is a myth<br><br> B. already gives plenty of aid<br><br> C. It was a myth

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

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/phrases are suggested, one of which fits the blank appropriately. Find out the appropriate word/ phrase in each case.

Marine life (6) along the coast and in the ocean results from harmful fishing practices such as trawling or dynamite fishing; poor land use practices in agricultural. (7) development and forestry sectors; and the human activities such as mining and anchoring. Destroyed habitats include sea grasses. marshes, corals and mangroves - all of which are important nurseries for fish and critical for buffering coasts from storm damage. Damaging habitat can lead to increased (8) and sedimentation, increased impact from storms, fewer (9) grounds and fewer places for animals and plants to live. Destructive fishing, land-based sedimentation, dredging, marine recreation, typhoons and storms, poor agricultural practices, and coastal development and land (10) increasingly (11) and devastate productive marine habitats. One major ecological impact derives from increased sediment loads in coastal waters from activities such as logging. Sedimentation, which produces turbidity and limits the (12) of sunlight (13) primary and secondary producers- thus altering food web dynamics. The smothering of coral reefs by sediment also (14) fish and produces ecosystem changes. Chemicals in sediments, such as DDT or heavy metals, may bio accumulate in marine life as well. Oil spilling is also major problem for the destruction of the (15) life.

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them. <br><br> (A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers, <br><br> (B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts. <br><br> (C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes. <br><br> (D) This impact can run into decades and centuries. <br><br> (E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past arid our future. <br><br> (F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Which is the FIFTH sentence of the passage after the rearrangement ?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them. <br><br> (A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers, <br><br> (B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts. <br><br> (C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes. <br><br> (D) This impact can run into decades and centuries. <br><br> (E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past arid our future. <br><br> (F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Which is the THIRD sentence of the passage ?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them. <br><br> (A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers, <br><br> (B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts. <br><br> (C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes. <br><br> (D) This impact can run into decades and centuries. <br><br> (E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past arid our future. <br><br> (F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Which is the SECOND sentence of the passage ?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them. <br><br> (A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers, <br><br> (B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts. <br><br> (C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes. <br><br> (D) This impact can run into decades and centuries. <br><br> (E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past arid our future. <br><br> (F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Which is the LAST (SIXTH) sentence of the passage ?

Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them. <br><br> (A) Development of drought resistance could benefit large numbers of farmers, <br><br> (B) Hence the human race has no choice but to adapt to these impacts. <br><br> (C) India has to be concerned about climatic changes. <br><br> (D) This impact can run into decades and centuries. <br><br> (E) Environment day is thus an important occasion to assess the past arid our future. <br><br> (F) Since there is a possibility of adverse impact on agriculture which could deter growth.

Which is the FIRST sentence of the passage ?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

The passage seems to emphasize that the outside world has

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

According to the Westerners the solution to eradicate poverty of African nations lies in

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

The author has given the example of Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan in support of his argument that

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

The author has mentioned Ghana as a country with

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

The cases of malaria in Africa are mainly due to<br><br> (A) high temperature<br><br> (B) climatic conditions conducive for breeding. <br><br> (C) malaria carriers' liking for human blood in preference to that of cattle.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Choose the word/group of words which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.<br> OBLIGATION

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Choose the word/group of words which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.<br> SQUANDER

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Choose the word/group of words which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.<br> MODEST

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Choose the word/group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage.<br> MYTH

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's <strong>prolonged</strong> economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have <strong>extensive</strong> corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. <br><br> What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle. <br><br> Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been <strong>squandered</strong>. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an <strong>obligation</strong> to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households. <br><br> From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that <strong>modest</strong> amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents. <br><br> The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.

Choose the word/group of words which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word given in bold as used in the passage.<br> EXTENSIVE