Comprehension

The idea of demarcating certain areas within the country as special economic zones to promote investment and growth is not new. A large country unable to provide the kind of facilities and environment that can attract foreign investment throughout the country often finds it feasible and attractive to carve up some of its areas where such facilities can be provided. The laws and procedures for setting up new industries are waived to make the area business-friendly with developed infrastructure and a one-window interaction with government. In addition, huge tax benefits are promised to lure investors. China’s experience shows that if chalked out and implemented with care such a policy can accelerate the flow of capital and technology from abroad and thereby speed up growth. 
However, SEZs may not be the best option in all situations to clear the bottlenecks in growth. India’s experience with export processing zones (EPZs) bears this out. They have failed in India for the simple reason that the factors that made the SEZs successful in China have been absent here. In India, as in China, EPZs were thought of as a way of providing an escape route from the stranglehold of control that prevailed over the Indian economy. But even while promising to ease the rigours of controls, Indian policy-makers could not give up their pen chant for micromanaging from the centre and undoing the promised relaxations with all kinds of qualifications and “guidelines”.
Over last two decades India has evolved into a market economy and much of governmental control has disappeared, but the flow of foreign direct investment has not reached anywhere near the levels of China. Besides, infrastructure building has fallen far short of what is required. Even after three years of the enactment of the Electricity Act (2003), private investment in electricity generation is still a trickle with the states refusing to give up the monopoly of their electricity boards in the matter of purchase of the power generated. While swearing by growth, governments at both the centre and the states cite the fiscal responsibility laws to plead their helplessness in making the required investments to improve infrastructure.
Given the situation, the SEZs have apparently been thought of as a simple way out. In its enthusiasm for SEZs the commerce ministry forgot two critical lessons of the Chinese experi ence, viz., that an SEZ must be of an adequate size to provide opportunities for reaping the benefits of large-scale operations and their number should be few. Every industry or economic activity worth its name is now seeking SEZ status. Proposals are now being floated to invite foreign educational institutions to come to India with promises of SEZ treatment! The finance ministry apprehends a loss of nearly 1,75,000 crore in direct taxes, customs duties and excise duties over the next five years.

Question: 1

The objective of the author in writing the above passage seems to be to

Show Hint

- Always check the author’s concluding remarks for the overall objective.
- Distinguish between merely presenting pros/cons and actively opposing/supporting something.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • highlight the failure of Indian policy makers regarding EPZs.
  • narrate the pros and cons of SEZs.
  • compare between the Indian EPZs and Chinese SEZs.
  • oppose the proliferation of SEZs in India.
  • argue that India should imitate the Chinese policies regarding SEZs.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: The author begins by acknowledging that SEZs can work if planned carefully, as China’s experience shows.
Step 2: He highlights India’s failures with EPZs due to excessive government control, weak infrastructure, and lack of foreign investment.
Step 3: In the concluding section, the author criticizes India’s current enthusiasm for SEZs, noting that too many proposals and misuse (like foreign educational institutions seeking SEZ status) could cause huge tax losses.
Step 4: Hence, the author’s main purpose is not simply comparing or narrating pros/cons, but specifically opposing the uncontrolled proliferation of SEZs.
Final Answer: (D).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

The author’s arguments suggest the following conclusions, except

Show Hint

- Watch for the difference between what the \textbf{author asserts} vs. what he reports others as \textbf{claiming}.
- “Except” questions require eliminating all options that match the text and picking the one that does not.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • SEZs may be the best option for countries unable to provide infrastructure and business environment to attract foreign direct investment.
  • SEZs must be large enough to house large scale operations.
  • fiscal responsibility laws actually limit the investment on infrastructure by the Government of India.
  • government of India must limit the number of SEZs.
  • SEZs cause loss of tax revenue for the central Government.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: The passage mentions fiscal responsibility laws, but only in the context that governments cite them as an excuse for not investing adequately in infrastructure.
Step 2: The author does not claim that the laws themselves {actually limit} investment—only that governments use them as a justification.
Step 3: The other options (A, B, D, E) are directly supported:
- (A) aligns with the introduction.
- (B) stated explicitly as a lesson from China.
- (D) another Chinese lesson about limiting numbers.
- (E) tax loss mentioned in conclusion.
Thus, the “except” answer is (C).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

The author does not oppose

Show Hint

- Pay attention to what the author explicitly criticizes vs. what he accepts as a valid measure.
- Sometimes, the “not opposed” option is something the author mentions positively.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • SEZ treatment of foreign educational institutes in India.
  • qualifiers undoing relaxation of government control.
  • tax benefits to strategically promote SEZs.
  • monopoly of state electricity boards in power purchase.
  • lack of Government initiative in infrastructure development.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: The author criticizes granting SEZ treatment too widely (foreign educational institutions), continued micromanagement (qualifiers), monopoly of state boards, and inadequate infrastructure.
Step 2: However, the author does not oppose {tax benefits to promote SEZs strategically}. In fact, he accepts that tax benefits are one of the measures to attract investors, provided SEZs are planned carefully.
Step 3: Hence, only option (C) is not opposed.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

The passage was most likely written in the year:

Show Hint

- Use internal textual clues (laws, dates, events) to determine the likely period of writing.
- Phrases like “after three years” are strong indicators of timing.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • 1991
  • 2001
  • 2003
  • 2006
  • 2011
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: The passage refers to the Electricity Act (2003) and notes that “even after three years” private investment in electricity is still low. This places the writing around 2006.
Step 2: Options before 2003 (1991, 2001) cannot be correct since the Act had not yet been passed.
Step 3: Options after 2006 (2011) are too late, as the reference is immediate (“even after three years”).
Step 4: Therefore, the best answer is 2006.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in XAT exam

View More Questions