English Reading Comprehension Bank PO Exams Set 6

English Comprehension Passages Competitive Exams

Hello Friends, We are sharing some important English reading comprehension Questions with Answers solutions for bank PO in pdf, helpful for SBI and IBPS PO and Clerk exams 2017 2018. These reading comprehension passages Questions are very important for SBI PO exam and IBPS PO & other upcoming banking exams like for IBPS PO Pre and Mains, SBI PO Pre and Mains, SSC, CAT, XAT, NMAT, MAT & other exams 2017.

Reading Comprehension Exercises for practice for bank exams provided by Bank4Study.com will help you a lot in your goal to crack the test. Reading comprehension for bank po exams bank exams questions papers. You will be taught to solve these questions better by solving many Reading comprehension.

Practice English Reading Comprehension Questions for upcoming Bank PO and Clerk Exams were given below, candidates those who are preparing for the examination can use this questions.

Reading Comprehension Passages for competitive exams

Directions (Q. 1 - 8): Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow based on the information given in the passage.

The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support from their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round.
The current debate on TRIPs in India-as indeed elsewhere-echoes wider concerns about „privatisation‟ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities.
Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. In our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the „losses‟, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer‟s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed material, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not „marketable‟ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work.
The public sector must, therefore, continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarily, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarily between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over.
The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a „public good‟ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Varieties/techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germ plasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germ plasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded institutions? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or for communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individuals/ institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co-operatives, universities, public trust and a variety of non- governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non-government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.

1. Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?

(1) The role of MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture.

(2) The strategy and policies for establishing an IPR regime for Indian agriculture.

(3) The relative roles of public and private sectors.

(4) Wider concerns about „privatisation‟ of research.

2. The fundamental breakthrough in deciphering the structure and functioning of DNA has become a public good. This means that

(1) breakthroughs in fundamental research on DNA are accessible by all without any monetary considerations.

(2) the fundamental research on DNA has the characteristic of having beneficial effects for the public at large.

(3) due to the large scale of fundamental research on DNA, it falls in the domain of public sector research institutions.

(4) the public and other companies must have free access to such fundamental breakthroughs in research.

3. In debating the respective roles of the public and private sectors in the national research system, it is important to recognise

(1) that private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely on their own research.

(2) that almost all technological improvements are based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past.

(3) the complementary role of public-and private-sector research.

(4) that knowledge repositories are primarily the scientific community and its academic publications.

4. Which one of the following may provide incentives to address the problem of potential adverse consequences of biotechnology?

(1) Include IPR issues in the TRIPs agreement.

(2) Nationalise MNCs engaged in private research in biotechnology.

(3) Encourage domestic firms to patent their innovations.

(4) Make provisions in the law for user compensation against failure of newly developed varieties.

5. Which of the following statements is not a likely consequence of emerging technologies in agriculture?

(1) Development of newer and newer varieties will lead to increase in biodiversity.

(2) MNCs may underplay the negative consequences of the newer technology on environment.

(3) Newer varieties of seeds may increase vulnerability of crops to pests and diseases.

(4) Reforms in patent laws and user compensation against crop failures would be needed to address new technology problems.

6. The TRIPs agreement emerged from the Uruguay Round to

(1) address the problem of adverse consequences of genetically engineered new varieties of grain.

(2) fulfil the WTO requirement to have an agreement on trade related property rights.

(3) provide incentives to innovators by way of protecting their intellectual property.

(4) give credibility to the innovations made by MNCs in the field of pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

7. Public or quasi-public research institutions are more likely than private companies to address the negative consequences of new technologies, because of which of the following reasons?

(1) Public research is not driven by profit motive.

(2) Private companies may not be able to absorb losses arising out of the negative effects of the new technologies.

(3) Unlike new technology products, knowledge and techniques for resource management are not amenable to simple market transactions.

(4) All of the above.

8. While developing a strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, which one of the following statements needs to be considered?

(1) Public and quasi-public institutions are not interested in making profits.

(2) Public and quasi-public institutions have a broader and long-term outlook than private companies.

(3) Private companies are incapable of building products based on traditional and folk knowledge.

(4) Traditional and folk knowledge cannot be protected by patents.

What Others Are Reading

English Reading Comprehension Exams

1. (b) has not been explicitly stated in the passage.

2. (a) is given in the opening lines of the fifth paragraph. (b), (c) and (d) are imprecise interpretations.

3. (a) is doubtful. (b) and (d) are general observations. (c) is stated in the opening sentences of the fourth paragraph.

4. Refer to the end of paragraph 2, where both the problem and the concern have been addressed. (a), (b) and (c) sound far-fetched in this regard.

5. (b), (c) and (d) are clearly given in paragraph 2. ‘reduced biodiversity’ suggests that (a) is the answer.

6. The essence of paragraph 1 is captured in (c). Thus, (a), (b) and (d) are irrelevant.

7. (a), (b) and (c) are outlined in paragraph 3. Hence, (d) is the answer.

8. Refer to the concluding sentence of paragraph 3 and the opening sentence of paragraph 4 to mark (b) with confidence. (a) and (c) are not the main concerns. (d) is an obtuse observation with regard to our question.