Read the following passage and answer the 4 four items that follow:Can poor countries afford to be green? That is a question which politicians in the developing world have often asked pointedly. To them, it seems that the obsession of some rich with preserving forests and saving cuddly animals like pandas or lemurs, while paying less attention to the human beings living nearby, is both cynical and hypocritical. There is of course plenty of evidence that greenery and growth are not polar opposite. After decades of expansion in China and other fast emerging economies, some of the negative side effects and their impact on human welfare, above all the death toll caused by foul air and water, are horribly clear. Yet the relationship between growth and the state of environment is far from simple. Some experts feel that poor countries have been quite right to challenge the sort of green orthodoxy which rejects the very idea of economic growth. Indeed, the single biggest variable in determining a country's ranking is income per head. But that doesn't imply that economic growth automatically leads to an improvement in the environment.Growth does offer solutions to the sorts of environmental woes local air pollution for example that directly kill humans. This matters, because about a quarter of all deaths in the world have some link to environmental factors. Most of the victims are poor people who are already vulnerable because of bad living conditions, lack of access to medicine, and malnutrition. Among the killers, especially of children in which the environment plays the role, are diarrhoea, respiratory infections and malaria. These diseases reinforce a vicious circle of poverty and hopelessness by depressing production. According to the World Bank, the economic burden on society caused by bad environmental health amounts to between 2 % and 3 % of GDP. As poor countries get richer, they usually invest heavily in environmental improvements, such as cleaning up water supplies and improving sanitation, that boost human health. But the link between growth and environmentally benign outcomes is much less clear when it comes to the sort of pollution that fouls up nature such as acid rain which poisons lakes and forests as opposed to directly killing human beings. The key to addressing that sort of pollution is not just money but good governance. Hence, the poor Dominican Republic is much healthier than nearby Haiti, Costa Rica is far ahead of Nicaragua, in spite of broadly similar natural resources, and wealthy Belgium is the sick man of Western Europe, with an environmental record worse than that of many developing countries. Q4. Which one of the following can be MOST APPROPRIATELY inferred from the passage?

Read the following passage and answer the 4 (four) items that follow:

Can poor countries afford to be green? That is a question which politicians in the developing world have often asked pointedly. To them, it seems that the obsession of some rich with preserving forests and saving cuddly animals like pandas or lemurs, while paying less attention to the human beings living nearby, is both cynical and hypocritical. There is of course plenty of evidence that greenery and growth are not polar opposite. After decades of expansion in China and other fast-emerging economies, some of the negative side-effects and their impact on human welfare, above all the death toll caused by foul air and water, are horribly clear. Yet the relationship between growth and the state of environment is far from simple. Some experts feel that poor countries have been quite right to challenge the sort of green orthodoxy which rejects the very idea of economic growth. Indeed, the single biggest variable in determining a country's ranking is income per head. But that doesn't imply that economic growth automatically leads to an improvement in the environment.

Growth does offer solutions to the sorts of environmental woes (local air pollution for example) that directly kill humans. This matters, because about a quarter of all deaths in the world have some link to environmental factors. Most of the victims are poor people who are already vulnerable because of bad living conditions, lack of access to medicine, and malnutrition. Among the killers, especially of children in which the environment plays the role, are diarrhoea, respiratory infections and malaria. These diseases reinforce a vicious circle of poverty and hopelessness by depressing production. According to the World Bank, the economic burden on society caused by bad environmental health amounts to between 2% and 3% of GDP. As poor countries get richer, they usually invest heavily in environmental improvements, such as cleaning up water supplies and improving sanitation, that boost human health. But the link between growth and environmentally benign outcomes is much less clear when it comes to the sort of pollution that fouls up nature (such as acid rain which poisons lakes and forests) as opposed to directly killing human beings. The key to addressing that sort of pollution is not just money but good governance. Hence, the poor Dominican Republic is much healthier than nearby Haiti, Costa Rica is far ahead of Nicaragua, in spite of broadly similar natural resources, and wealthy Belgium is the sick man of Western Europe, with an environmental record worse than that of many developing countries.

Q3. The MOST APPROPRIATE title for the passage would be:

Q.

In the past, the richest states often grew the fastest and the poor ones the slowest. But India's record GDP growth of 8.49% per year in the 5 year period 2004-09 is a case of improved productivity and growth in customarily poor states trickling up and aggregating into rapid growth at the national level. Nobody should call this a success of trickle-down economics. Trickle-down assumes that fast growth can be had simply by changing a few policies that benefit the rich, after which some benefits trickle down to the poor. In fact, miracle growth is globally rare, precisely because it is so difficult for countries to improve the productivity of a substantial proportion of the population.

Only when productivity improvement is widespread is there enough productivity improvement from all regions and people to add up to fast growth. In other words, fast growth does not trickle down; it trickles up. Once a country grows fast, government revenues will boom and can be used to accelerate spending in social sectors and welfare. Miracle growth and record revenues enabled the Central Government to finance social welfare schemes, farm loan waivers and enormous oil subsidies.

This can be called the trickling down of part of the revenue

bonanza into welfare and workfare. But neither welfare nor workfare could have caused the sharp acceleration of economic growth. The growth bonanza itself was sparked by state-level political and policy changes that accelerated local growth, which then trickled up to the national level.

Q. To which of the following factors does the author attribute India's high growth rate during 2004-09?

Q. Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions. Certain words/phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
Which of the following can be said about Grameen?
A. Its success in developing countries will ensure its success in developed countries.
B. It ensures that the poor in developing countries enjoy a subsistence standard of living.
C. It has demonstrated that the poor are far more likely to repay loans than the affluent.