Practice question set 1 for IBPS CWE for PO English Language

The practise question set was designed keeping in mind the patterns of IBPS PO exam question paper. The questions were formed to test the understanding of the aspirant on the subject.

Solve the IBPS CWE PO 2011 Question Paper on English Language and be better prepared for IBPS PO Exam 2012 scheduled to be held on 17 June 2012.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

It is being projected as a boon for the agricultural sector. In reality, it will be the beginning of the end for Indian farmers. It has happened in the west. Ever since big retail-dominated by multi-brand retailers has entered the market, farmers has disappeared and poverty has increased. Today, not more than seven lacks farmers remain on the farms in the west. According to a report, every minute one farmer quits agriculture. Farmers’ incomes have come down by more than forty percent. These days low supermarket prices are being cited as the reason for the exodus of dairy farmers too. It is therefore futile to expect the supermarkets rescuing farmers in India.

Despite the destruction of farming globally, administrators in India are gung-ho about allowing foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing. “The agriculture sector needs well functioning markets to drive growth, employment and economic prosperity in rural areas,” says a discussion paper.

Since 2006, India has allowed a partial opening up of the retail sector. Have these retail units benefited Indian farmers and the consumers? The answer is no. The argument for setting up of big retail chains is that the supermarket chains will squeeze out the middlemen thereby providing higher prices to farmers and at the same time provide large investments for the development of post-harvest infrastructure. All these claims are untrue, and big retail has not helped farmers anywhere in the world.

If the supermarkets were so efficient, why is the west providing a massive subsidy for agriculture? After all, the world’s biggest retail giants are based in the west and it should have helped their farmers become economically viable. But it did not happen. Till 1950, a farmer who would receive about seventy percent of what was spent on food receives no more than 3 to 4 percent today. And that is why the farmers there are being supported in the form of direct income support by the government.

A report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group comprising the richest 30 countries in the world, states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 percent in 2009, up form 21 percent in 2008. In just 2009, industrialized countries provided a subsidy of Rs. 1,260 billion. And it is primarily for this reason that farm incomes are lucrative. Take the Netherlands: the average farm family income is 275 percent of the average household income. This is because of farm subsidies, not supermarkets. India is therefore importing a failed model form the west especially when India is incapable of providing such heavy subsidies to its farmers.

Regarding employment, big retail does not squeeze out middlemen form the food chain. Supermarket claims that they remove middlemen and therefore are able to provide a higher price to farmers. In reality, what happen is the opposite. Supermarkets are themselves the big middlemen. They replace the small fish. Supermarkets replace the plethora of small middleman. The muneem clad in a dhoti-kurta is replaced by a smartly dressed up middleman. So while the farmer pauperizes, the profit of supermarkets multiply.

Based on biased studies by consultancy firms and some institutes, it is believed that supermarkets will create employment and therefore help in ameliorating poverty. This is a flawed assumption. Lessons need to be drawn from a 2004 study done at Pennsylvania State University. The authors measured the impact of a retail boom on poverty in various adjoining states. The comprehensive study clearly brings out that those American states that had more retail stores in 1987, had higher poverty rates by 1999 than the states where fewer stores were set up.

At stake is the livelihood security of 120 lacks small shopkeepers, 4 crore hawkers and at least 20 crore (of the 60 crore) small farmers. What is needed is more public sector investment in setting up a chain of mandis across the country. Providing an assured market and reasonable procurement price is what Indian farmers need. This has to be supplemented by a network of Foodgrain banks at Panchayat level that assure local production and distribution.

Q- 1. Why does the author disagree with the idea that big retail stores can salvage farmers’ condition in India?

(1) The farmers in India still prefer to sell their produce to local middleman and mandis than to the big retail stores.

(2) There have been examples throughout the world that big retail chains further deteriorate the condition of the farmers.

(3) Big retail chains buy the farmer’s produce at a much lower cost as compared to the present middlemen.

(4) The government subsidies to the farmers selling their produce directly to big retail stores is far lesser than the ones who sell their produce to the government itself.

(5) Selling the produce to small shopkeepers and hawkers saves the farmers of the expenses involved in selling it to big retail stores which are mostly based in big cities.

Q- 2. Complete the following sentences by selling the alternative which is most appropriate in the context of the passage.

Although it was assumed that retail chain giants would squeeze out middlemen from the farming Sector, …………?

(1) The retail chain giants helped the farmers get subsidies from the government.

(2) India is still contemplating allowing foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing.

(3) The retail chain giants themselves proved to be a rambling version of the smaller middlemen.

(4) The government was more concerned about the welfare of the farmers.

(5) None of these

Q- 3. Which of the following is true in context of the passage?

(1) Noticing the state of farmers in the west owing to the advent of retail giants, Indian administrators are not too keen to allow multi brand retailing in India.

(2) Supermarket chains have provided large investments for the development of post-harvest infrastructure.

(3) These days, farmers in the west earn several times more than their earning half a century ago.

(4) India is providing heavy subsidies to cover up the losses made by the farmers because of retail chain giants.\

(5) None is true

Q- 4. The fact that the west provides enormous subsidies to its farmers proves that_____

(1) The government in the west lures the farmers into selling their produce to retail chain giants in return of such subsidies.

(2) Many farmers who had given up farming as a profession are now returning to it.

(3) Supermarkets have indeed helped in making farming a lucrative business.

(4) The retail chains are arm twisting the government to provide subsidies to the farmers who sell their produce to them.

(5) The retail chains have failed to benefit the farmers thus forcing the government to come to their rescue.

Q- 5. Which of the following have been the arguments for setting up big retail stores in India?

(A) The retail chains would sell the farmers produce at a comparatively higher price than the smaller shops so as to improve the farmers’ profit’.

(B) The retail chains would drive the middlemen out of the system, thus improving farmers’ profit farmers.

(C) Big retail chains in the west have been taking strides of growth and have been benefiting the farmers.

(D) The big retail chains would provide an organized market which would bring about growth in the rural areas.

(1) Only (A) and (C)

(2) Only (C) and (D)

(3) Only (A), (C) and (D)

(4) Only (B) and (D)

(5) All (A), (B), (C) and (D)

View/Dowload the Complete Question Paper

IBPS 2011 CWE for PO : Solved Question Paper on English Language