Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Read the given passage and answer the question that question that follow. Not all farmers in India can afford to buy pesticides and fertilizers for their crops and so the Government gives a subsidy on pesticides and fertilizers to all the Indian farmers. Due to this, rich farmers also get the benefits of subsidies even when they do not need them. It is still imperative that subsidies be given to the farmers because withdrawing subsidies would mean handicapping the poor farmers. Which of the following argument could be made from the above passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that question that follow. Not all farmers in India can afford to buy pesticides and fertilizers for their crops and so the Government gives a subsidy on pesticides and fertilizers to all the Indian farmers. Due to this, rich farmers also get the benefits of subsidies even when they do not need them. It is still imperative that subsidies be given to the farmers because withdrawing subsidies would mean handicapping the poor farmers. Which of the following argument could be made from the above passage? Correct Answer Subsidies are necessary to support the farmers and also to encourage them to grow crops.

The correct answer is option 2. Subsidies are necessary to support the farmers and also to encourage them to grow crops.

From the given passage, it can be understood that subsidies are necessary for the farmers as it lowers the price of fertilizers and pesticides for them and makes these commodities affordable. Only argument 2 provides a reason as to why subsidies are important for the farmers. Hence, option 2 is the right solution.

Related Questions

Read the following passage and answer the item that follows. Your answers to this item should be based on the passage only. Many farmers use synthetic pesticides to kill infesting insects. The consumption of pesticides in some of the developed countries is touching 3000 grams/hectare. Unfortunately, there are reports that these compounds possess inherent toxicities that endanger the health of the farm operators, consumers and the environment. Synthetic pesticides are generally persistent in environment. Entering in food chain they destroy the microbial diversity and cause ecological imbalance. Their indiscriminate use has resulted in development of resistance among insects to insecticides, upsetting of balance in nature and resources of treated populations. Natural pest control using the botanical pesticides is safer to the user and the environment because they break down into harmless compounds within hours or days in the presence of sunlight. Plants with pesticidal properties have been in nature for millions of years without any ill or adverse effects on the ecosystem. They are easily decomposed by many microbes common in most soils. They help in the maintenance of biological diversity of predators and human health hazards. Botanical pesticides formulated from plants are biodegradable and their use in crop protection is a practical sustainable alternative. On the basis of the above passage, the following assumptions have been made: 1. Synthetic pesticides should never be used in modern agriculture. 2. One of the aims of sustainable agriculture is to ensure minimal ecological imbalance. 3. Botanical pesticides are more effective as compared to synthetic pesticides. Which of the assumptions given above is/are correct?
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between strong and weak arguments. Strong arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. Weak arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below are followed by two arguments each numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the two arguments is the strong argument and which is the weak argument. Statement: Should the Indian Government withdraw the subsidies on LPG cylinders considering a portion of the population can afford to buy unsubsidised cylinders? Arguments: Yes. Subsidising cylinders leads to its misuse. By not giving subsidies on cylinders, the Government can save a part of its income and spend it on other more productive uses. No. Withdrawing subsidies on cylinders would make them too expensive for the poor and the middle class income groups and they would eventually turn to unsustainable means for household uses leading to pollution and ill health.
Read the following passage and answer the item that follows. Your answers to this item should be based on the passage only. Many farmers use synthetic pesticides to kill infesting insects. The consumption of pesticides in some of the developed countries is touching 3000 grams/hectare. Unfortunately, there are reports that these compounds possess inherent toxicities that endanger the health of the farm operators, consumers and the environment. Synthetic pesticides are generally persistent in environment. Entering in food chain they destroy the microbial diversity and cause ecological imbalance. Their indiscriminate use has resulted in development of resistance among insects to insecticides, upsetting of balance in nature and resources of treated populations. Natural pest control using the botanical pesticides is safer to the user and the environment because they break down into harmless compounds within hours or days in the presence of sunlight. Plants with pesticidal properties have been in nature for millions of years without any ill or adverse effects on the ecosystem. They are easily decomposed by many microbes common in most soils. They help in the maintenance of biological diversity of predators and human health hazards. Botanical pesticides formulated from plants are biodegradable and their use in crop protection is a practical sustainable alternative. Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding biopesticides? 1. They are not hazardous to human health. 2. They are persistent in environment. 3. They are essential to maintain the biodiversity of any ecosystem. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? What wrong with respect to India are the Europeans responsible for?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? According to the writer the responsibility of explaining the facts about India to Europeans rests with?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?
Read the given passage and answer the question that question that follow. Progressive taxation system is followed in India which means that people with high incomes have to pay a higher percentage of their income as tax and people with low incomes have to pay the a small percentage of their income. This policy is sometimes considered unfair but that is not the case. The poor can barely pay for their basic survival needs and so they should not be charged the same as the rich who can easily pay for luxuries. This system prevents the risk of taking too much money from the poor and is therefore, the most suitable policy for India. Which of the following argument could be made from the above passage?
Read the given passage and answer the question that question that follow. On paper the Indian Government spends a lot on the poor but in reality the poor barely get anything. The major reason for this misallocation of funds is corruption. As the money has to pass through several stages before reaching the poor, most of it is taken by the corrupt officials and the small amount that reaches the poor, is used inadequately. This is one of the problems that slows down the progress of the country. Which of the following argument could be made from the above passage?
Rita, Sarita, Shyam, Raj, Raman and Rahul are six different persons who are going to buy different mobiles – Nokia, Vivo, Oppo, Iphone, Jio and Xioami in different months – January to June (but not necessarily in the same order). Raj will buy Jio mobile but not in February. Sarita will neither buy Vivo mobile nor Nokia. One of the people will buy Oppo in March. Sarita will buy mobile just immediate after Raj. Rahul will buy mobile immediate before Raj. Rahul will neither buy Vivo, Oppo nor Nokia. Shyam will not buy Oppo but will buy mobile immediate after Raman. Raman will neither buy Nokia nor Iphone. Which of the following combination is not correct?