List of top Language Comprehension Questions asked in Management Aptitude Test

Study the passage below and answer the questions.
For decades, the Government has grappled with India's health care shortcomings by introducing various programmes. Despite some measure of success, the problem of universal health care access continues to fester like a recalcitrant sore. While there are several reasons for the lack of complete success in improving health care access, the overall problem may lie in the pursuit of improper priorities. To address access issued headon, radically improving primary health care in India should be top priority. A steep shortage in primary health care centres (PHCs) across India is the prime reason why villagers are forced to trek almost 20 km to reach the nearest PHC. This may still be of little use, because most PHCs are perpetually plagued by a supply and staff shortage, making matters worse for sick patients who expend time, energy and resources to reach the PHC. For people from towns and semi-urban areas seeking modern medical care the situation is no different since they need to travel to the nearest city. Despite 7,50,000 doctors registered with the Medical Council of India, the ground reality is that about 2,00,000 aren't active anymore. This means India has only one doctor to treat 2,000 people, instead of one doctor for every 1,000. Improving those figures will take time because the number of medical and nursing colleges cannot be hiked overnight to boost the output of medical graduates. The time has come to firmly recognise that health and health care issues cannot be left solely to the Government or public sector entities if India is to meet its health care targets including Millennium Development Goals for 2015. Such immense investments and specialised skills could best be tapped if public-private partnerships were promoted and Private companies encouraged to establish health care infrastructure in all geographies- urban, semi-urban and rural - particularly where primary health care is concerned. Estimated indicate that only 320 million people or 26 percent of India's population are covered under some form of medical insurance - public or private. In other words, large uncovered sections of the populace are forced to meet medical costs via out-ofpocket spends, causing immense financial burden and pushing many families into poverty.
Study the passage below and answer the questions.
With will and vision, India's energy prospects can be changed from grim to green, and the world will benefit as a result, At 571 kWh per capita, India's electricity consumption is one-fifth of China's (2,631 kWh) and less than one - twentieth of the USA's (12,914 kWh). India's electricity demand will only grow. Solar electricity today at Rs.7.50 a kWh is economical compared with subsidised diesel generated power at roughly Rs.15 a unit, but more expensive than coal - based electricity at about Rs.6 And, in any case, India has ash - rich coal. What is the true cost of coal - based power? Prices are distorted by subsidies, State boundaries, vote - bank politics, and uncharged carbon - emission costs. Can India leapfrog into a clean - energy future rather than extend the conventional grid with fossil fuels at its core? In a nation blessed with abundant sunlight, to what extent should electricity be a networking service at all? Could India tap ambient solar energy for most of its needs? India's single - minded focus should be massive and rapid solar deployment, not only through utility - scale solar plants, but also through distributed generation, household - by - household, nationwide. Electricity in Indian homes should be roof top - to - room and solar based with energy self - sufficiency as the goal; the grid can complement and serve as back - up where available. Anchored with solar, the solutions may include combinations with bio - diesel, batteries, wind, biogas, micro - hydro, etc. At night or when the sun is behind clouds, alternative yet local sources can assure electricity. Once solar energy takes root, India will need less of the colossal and wasteful transmission, distribution and generation infrastructure except for industrial operations such as running factories and trains.
Instructions
Study the passage below and answer the questions.
The change in the Government's focus, from coveting the cash balances of public sector undertaking (PSUs) to examining how these can be put to better use by them, is a welcome development. In the current investment - starved environment, there is certainly a strong macro - economic imperative for inducing PSUs to deploy funds in capex programmes. But, from a shareholder's perspective- and that applies to the Government as well - it is also important that funds in excess of their immediate investment needs, estimated at over Rs. 1 lakh crore, earn a reasonable return. This is made difficult by rigid and archaic investment norms. So, it is a double whammy, wherein idle money of state - owned firms neither gets invested in projects nor generates sufficient portfolio returns. The current guidelines on deployment of surplus cash by PSUs decree that 60 percent of these should be parked with public sector banks. The 'public sector' mutual funds requirement is outdated, when many of them promoted by the likes of UTI, SBI and LIC have roped in foreign partners, making these ventures little different from pure private sector fund houses. Now that the investment guidelines are to be reviewed by a Government committee, it may be best for the Government to just stipulate general prudential norms to be followed by PSUs. These norms could emphasise safety liquidity of investments, their diversification across asset classes and securities, and provisions against taking speculative bets, that expose shareholder funds to capital loss risks.
Study the passage below and answer the questions.
The first requirement to ensure nuclear safety is technical expertise which India has. No questions have been raised so far about the expertise in Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). The first reactors were imported. Soon after commissioning the original suppliers left leaving us to fend for ourselves. The reactors have been running for decades without any serious environmental issues. More reactors have since been built indigenously with enhanced safety features, and increased power rating. Continuous monitoring of these shows negligible environmental impact compared to that arising from natural background radiation. All of this as possible because of the expertise available in DAE institutions. In the early years, there was self-regulation of safety. It had to be so because there was no other group working in this field. It worked very well. As the programme expanded, a full-time regulatory body was needed and, so, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) came into being. Continuing absence of education and research a nuclear technology in academic institutions meant the AERB had to be staffed with experts transferred to it from DAE units. AERB also had to rely on expertise in DAE for various kinds of analyses. This was facilitated by the AERB being under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Information that ought to have been disseminated in the first place was not available to the public. This has naturally tended to imputed motives on attitude of AERB and DAE to safety. An independent regulator is being demanded as the answer. Steps have to be initiated in the direction now. Meanwhile, reliance on expertise in DAE institutions is inevitable. If total independence now is impractical and expertise outside DAE is unavailable, only total transparency on the part of AERB and DAE can redeem the situation. This had not yet come about. If a larger contribution from nuclear energy is required, more effort is needed to effectively answer public questions on plant safety and to dispel needless fear of radiation. A brand new independent agency to be set up now to regulate nuclear safety may please some people, but would find it difficult to cope with the demands of an expanding programme with new designs.
Study the passage below and answer the questions.
Apprehensive that pharma companies may stop or reduce production of essential drugs after they come under price control, the Government is mulling steps to ensure that companies maintain present levels of output of these critical drugs. Sources said the recent decision to put a price cap 348 drugs was accompanied by a concern that the manufactures could lose interest in these medicines owing to reduced margins of profit. It was based on the past experience when the drug price control was first enacted. The Group of Ministers (GoM) that took the landmark decision directed the Department of Pharmaceutical to ensure that present production levels were maintained after the price control. As a follow-up, sources said, the Government could fix mandatory level of production in these drugs for each company in business. The fear over companies retaliating with decrease production revolves around the fact the price control would check profit margins. Once the essential medicines are brought under the Drug Price Control Order, they cannot be sold at a price highter than that fixed by the Government. A senior official said, "We will ensure that accessibility and availability of essential drugs does not go down". The GoM has also decided that the prices of medicines, which are part of the price control order of 1995 but not in the National List of Essential Medicines 2011, would be frozen for a year and thereafter a maximum increase of 10% per annum would be permitted. Out of the 348 medicines, the prices of 37 drugs are controlled by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA). The Government, through the NPPA, controls prices of 74 bulk drugs and their formulations.