NMAT 2005 Papers Solved Paper
HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2005 (FULL QUES PAPER WITH ANSWER KEYS)
I suppose the vitality of a group, an individual or a society is measured by the extent to which it posses courage and above all, creative imagination. If that imagination is lacking our growth becomes more and more stunted, which is a sign of decay. What then is happening. Today? Are we trying to improve in this respect or are we merely functioning somewhere on the surface without touching the reality which is afflicting on the surface without touching the reality which is afflicting the world & which may result in political conflict, economic warfare or world war? So, when there are discussions on the concept of man as visualized in the Eastern Ideal or The Western Ideal. They interest me greatly from a historical point of view and from a cultural point of view, although I have always resisted this idea of dividing the world into the orient andoccident, I do not believe in such divisions. There have, of course, been differences in racial and nation of outlook and in ideals but to talk of the east & west as such as little meaning. I can see the difference between an industrialized and a non-industrialised country. I think the difference, say, between India and Europe in the middle ages, would not have been very great and would have been comparable to the difference between any of the great countries of Asia today. I feel that we think roughly because we are misled in our approach. Differences have crept in and been intensified by this process of industrialization & mechanization which has promoted material well being tremendously and whichhas been a blessing to humanity. At the same time, it is corroding the life of the mind & thereby encouraging a process of self destruction. I am not for the moment talking or thinking about wars and the like we have seen in history races come up and gradually fade away in Asia, in Europe and other places. Are we witnessing the same thing today? It may be that this will not take effect in our lifetime. In the past anyway, one great consolation was that things happened only in one particular greater of the world. If there was a collapse in one part of the world, the other part carried on. No part will be left to survive, as it could in older times. During the so called Dark ages of Europe, there were bright periods in Asia, in China, in India, in the middle east and else where. In the old days if progress was limited, disaster was also limited in extent and intensity. Today, when we have arrived at a period of great disaster and it is a little difficult for us to choose a middle way which would unable us to achieve a little progress and, at the same time to limit the scope of disaster. That is the major question. A person who has to carry a burden of responsibility is greater troubled by the practical aspects of this question. Am I right in saying that the mental life of the world is in a process of deterioration, chiefly because the environment that has been created by the Industrial Revolution does not give time or opportunity to individuals to think? I do not deny that today there are many great thinkers but it is quite likely that they might be submerged in the mass of unthinking humanity. We are dealing with and talking a great deal about democracy and I have little doubt that democracy is the best of all the various methods available to us for the governance of human beings. At the same time, we are using today-by today I mean the last two decades or sothe emergence of democracy in a somewhat uncontrolled form. When we think of democracy, we normally think of it in the rather limited sense of the 19th century or the early 20th century use of the term. Owing to the remarkable technological growth, something has happened since then and meanwhile democracy has also spread. The result is that we have vast masses of human beings brought up by the Industrial Revolution, who are not encouraged or given an opportunity to think much. They live a life which, from the point of view of physical comfort, is incomparably better than it has been in any previous generation, but they seldom have a chance to think. And yet in a democratic system, it is this vast mass of human beings that will ultimately govern or elect those who govern.
Q1. Which one of the following statements is true according to the passage?
(1) Vitality and courage endanger creative imagination.
(2) Our attempts to grow are becoming more and more stunted.
(3) Decadence stunts the faculty of imagination.
(4) We are not attempting seriously enough to encourage age the growth of creative imagination.
Q2. According to the author, the present is characterized by
(1) self destructive tendencies
(2) great scope for disaster
(3) localized progress
(4) material progress
Q3. The problem facing us, as per the passage, is the choice between
(1) extent of progress and scope of disaster
(2) creativity and economic growth
(3) spirituality and materialism
(4) physical comfort and vitality
Q4. According to the passage, which one of the following statements is true and modern democracy?
(1) It stifles the individually of human beings.
(2) It is a product of modern materialism.
(3) It has engendered technological progress.
(4) It is largely constituted of individuals who do not think.
Q5. We can conclude from the passage that
(1) the price of progress is very high
(2) an environment that supports progress and human individuality must be created.
(3) economic growth will have to be slowed down to give people time to think.
(4) industrialization has proved to be a curse to humanity.
In many underdeveloped countries, the state plays an important and increasingly varied role in economic development today. There are four general arguments, all of them related, for state participation in economic development. First, the entrance requirements in terms of financial andcapital equipment are very large in industries, and the size of these obstacles will sere as barriers to entry on the part of private investors. One can imagine that these obstacles are imposing in industries such as steel production, automobiles, electronics, and parts of the textiles industry. In addition, there are what Myint calls “technical indivisibilities in social overhead capital.” Public utilities, transport, and communication facilities must be in place before industrial development can occur, and they do not lend themselves to small scaleimprovements. A related argument centres on the demand side of the economy. This economy is seen as fragmented, disconnected, and incapable of using inputs from other parts of the economy. Consequently, economic activity in one part of the economy does not generate the dynamism in other sectors that is expected in more cohesive economies. Industrialization necessarily involves many different, sectors; economic enterprises will thrive best in an environment in which they draw on inputs from related economic sectors and, in turn, release their own goods for industrial utilization within their own economies. A third argument concerns the low-level equilibrium trap in which less developed countries find themselves. At subsistence levels, societies consume exactly what they produce. There is no remaining surplus for reinvestment. As per-capita income rises, however, the additional income will not be used for saving and investment. Instead, it will have the effect of increasing the population that will eat up the surplus and force the society to its former subsistence position. Fortunately, after a certain point, the rate of population growth will decrease; economic growth will intersect with and eventually outstrip population growth. The private sector, however, will not be able to provide the one-shot large dose of capital to push economic growth beyond those levels where population increases eat up the incremental advances. The final argument concerns the relationship between delayed development and the state. Countries wishing to industrialize today have more competitors, and these competitors occupy a more differnentiated industrial terrain than previously. This means that the available niches in the international system are more limited. For today’s industrializers, therefore, the process of industrialization cannot be a haphazard affair, not can the pace, content, and direction be left, solely to market forces. Part of the reason for strong state presence, then, relates specifically to the competitive international environment in which modern countries and firms must operate.
Q6. What does the author suggest about the “technical indivisibilities in social overhead capital”?
(1) It is a barrier to private investment
(2) It enhances the development effects of private sector investment
(3) It leads to rapid technological progress
(4) It can prevent development from occurring
Q7. According to the passage, the “low-level equilibrium trap” in underdeveloped countries results from
(1) the inability of market forces to overcome the effects of population growth
(2) intervention of the state in economic development
(3) the tendency for societies to produce more than they can use
(4) the fragmented and disconnected nature of the demand side of the economy.
Q8. According to the author, a strong state presence is necessary
(1) to provide food for everyone
(2) to provide the capital needed to spur economic growth
(3) to ensure the livelihood of workers
(4) to ensure that people have more than what is necessary for subsistence
Q9. In the passage, the world ‘cohesive’ means
(1) containing many cohorts or groups
(2) modern and competitive
(3) naturally and logically connected
(4) containing many different sectors
Q10. In the passage, the word ‘imposing’ means
(1) Something huge
(2) something that strikes a pose
(3) something that obtrudes on others
(4) to act with a delusive effect