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:
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:
The correct option is C (c) Growth v/s Greenery
The most appropriate title for the passage is Growth vs. Greenery because this comparison is both explicit and implicit throughout the passage. Choice (A) would be appropriate if the author’s tone was critical
Choice (B) focuses only on green orthodoxy whereas the author explores all aspects of the subject – what developed and developing countries do or can do, how important is ecology to the well-being of people etc. Choice (D) is irrelevant. Hence Choice (C) is the correct answer.
(c) Growth v/s Greenery
The most appropriate title for the passage is Growth vs. Greenery because this comparison is both explicit and implicit throughout the passage. Choice (A) would be appropriate if the author’s tone was critical
Choice (B) focuses only on green orthodoxy whereas the author explores all aspects of the subject – what developed and developing countries do or can do, how important is ecology to the well-being of people etc. Choice (D) is irrelevant. Hence Choice (C) is the correct answer.
