English Reading Comprehension - MOST IMPORTANT UPSC CSE Previous Year Questions

Passage 1 Education, without a doubt, has an important functional, instrumental, and utilitarian dimension. This is revealed when one asks questions such as 'what is the purpose of education?'. The answers, too often, are 'to acquire qualifications for employment/upward mobility', 'wider/higher (in terms of income) opportunities', and 'to meet the needs for trained human power in diverse fields for national development'. But in its deepest sense education is not instrumentalist. That is to say, it is not to be justified outside of itself because it leads to the acquisition of formal skills or of certain desired psychological–social attributes. It must be respected in itself. Education is thus not a commodity to be acquired or possessed and then used, but a process of inestimable importance to individuals and society, although it can and does have enormous use value. Education then, is a process of expansion and conversion, not in the sense of converting students into doctors or engineers, but the widening and turning out of the mind — the creation, sustenance and development of self-critical awareness and independence of thought. It is an inner process of moral-intellectual development. What do you understand by the 'instrumentalist' view of education?

Passage 1 Education, without a doubt, has an important functional, instrumental, and utilitarian dimension. This is revealed when one asks questions such as 'what is the purpose of education?'. The answers, too often, are 'to acquire qualifications for employment/upward mobility', 'wider/higher (in terms of income) opportunities', and 'to meet the needs for trained human power in diverse fields for national development'. But in its deepest sense education is not instrumentalist. That is to say, it is not to be justified outside of itself because it leads to the acquisition of formal skills or of certain desired psychological–social attributes. It must be respected in itself. Education is thus not a commodity to be acquired or possessed and then used, but a process of inestimable importance to individuals and society, although it can and does have enormous use value. Education then, is a process of expansion and conversion, not in the sense of converting students into doctors or engineers, but the widening and turning out of the mind — the creation, sustenance and development of self-critical awareness and independence of thought. It is an inner process of moral-intellectual development. According to the passage, education must be respected in itself because

Passage 1 Education, without a doubt, has an important functional, instrumental, and utilitarian dimension. This is revealed when one asks questions such as 'what is the purpose of education?'. The answers, too often, are 'to acquire qualifications for employment/upward mobility', 'wider/higher (in terms of income) opportunities', and 'to meet the needs for trained human power in diverse fields for national development'. But in its deepest sense education is not instrumentalist. That is to say, it is not to be justified outside of itself because it leads to the acquisition of formal skills or of certain desired psychological–social attributes. It must be respected in itself. Education is thus not a commodity to be acquired or possessed and then used, but a process of inestimable importance to individuals and society, although it can and does have enormous use value. Education then, is a process of expansion and conversion, not in the sense of converting students into doctors or engineers, but the widening and turning out of the mind — the creation, sustenance and development of self-critical awareness and independence of thought. It is an inner process of moral-intellectual development. Education is a process in which

Passage 2 Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, — if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable — then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general, the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable, and more accurately targeted at the pests. "The evolution of pesticide resistance is natural selection in action." What does it actually imply?

Passage 2 Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, — if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable — then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general, the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable, and more accurately targeted at the pests. With reference to the passage, consider the following statements: 1. Use of chemical pesticides has become imperative in all the poor countries of the world. 2. Chemical pesticides should not have any role in sustainable agriculture. 3. One pest can develop resistance to many pesticides. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Passage 2 Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, — if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable — then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general, the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable, and more accurately targeted at the pests. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?

Passage 2 Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, — if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable — then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general, the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable, and more accurately targeted at the pests. How do pesticides act as agents for the selection of resistant individuals in any pest population? 1. It is possible that in a pest population the individuals will behave differently due to their genetic makeup. 2. Pests do possess the ability to detoxify the pesticides. 3. Evolution of pesticide resistance is equally distributed in pest population. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Passage 2 Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, — if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable — then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general, the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable, and more accurately targeted at the pests. Why is the use of chemical pesticides generally justified by giving the examples of poor and developing countries? 1. Developed countries can afford to do away with use of pesticides by adapting to organic farming, but it is imperative for poor and developing countries to use chemical pesticides. 2. In poor and developing countries, the pesticide addresses the problem of epidemic diseases of crops and eases the food problem. 3. The social and health costs of pesticide use are generally ignored in poor and developing countries. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Passage 2 Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, — if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable — then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general, the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable, and more accurately targeted at the pests. What does the passage imply?

Passage 3 Today's developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Which of the following conditions of growth can add to vulnerability? 1. When the growth occurs due to excessive exploitation of mineral resources and forests 2. When the growth brings about a change in humankind's creative potential. 3. When the growth is envisaged only for providing houses and social security to the people. 4. When the growth occurs due to emphasis on farming only. Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Passage 3 Today's developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. What does low-carbon growth imply in the present context? 1. More emphasis on the use of renewable sources of energy. 2. Less emphasis on manufacturing sector and more emphasis on agricultural sector. 3. Switching over from monoculture practices to mixed farming 4. Less demand for goods and services. Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Passage 3 Today's developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Which of the following conditions is/are necessary for the sustainable economic growth? 1. Spreading of economic prosperity more. 2. Popularizing/spreading of adaptive technologies widely 3. Investing on research in adaptation and mitigation technologies. Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Passage 3 Today's developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Which of the following inferences can be made from the passage? 1. Rainfed crops should not be cultivated in irrigated areas 2. Farming under water-deficient areas should not be a part of development strategy. Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Passage 3 Today's developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Consider the following assumptions: 1. Sustainable economic growth demands the use of creative potential of man. 2. Intensive agriculture can lead to ecological backlash. 3. Spread of the economic prosperity can adversely affect the ecology and environment With reference to the passage, which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Passage 3 Today's developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Which one of the following statements constitutes the central theme of this passage?

Passage 4 Invasions of exotic species into new geographical areas sometimes occur naturally without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally or as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and native communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction. One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centres of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenisation can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogenous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them. With reference to the passage, which of the following statements is correct?

Passage 4 Invasions of exotic species into new geographical areas sometimes occur naturally without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally or as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and native communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction. One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centres of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenisation can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogenous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them. Why does man introduce exotic species into new geographical areas? 1. To breed exotic species with local varieties. 2. To increase agricultural productivity. 3. For beautification and landscaping. Which of the above statements is/are correct?

Passage 4 Invasions of exotic species into new geographical areas sometimes occur naturally without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally or as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and native communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction. One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centres of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenisation can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogenous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them. How is homogenization prevented under natural conditions?

Passage 4 Invasions of exotic species into new geographical areas sometimes occur naturally without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally or as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and native communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction. One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centres of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenisation can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogenous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them. How have the human beings influenced the biodiversity? 1. By smuggling live organisms 2. By building highways 3. By making ecosystems sensitive so that new species are not allowed 4. By ensuring that new species do not have major impact on local species. Which of the statements given above are correct?

Passage 4 Invasions of exotic species into new geographical areas sometimes occur naturally without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally or as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and native communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction. One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centres of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenisation can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogenous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them. What can be the impact of invasion of exotic species on an ecosystem? 1. Erosion of endemic species. 2. Change in the species composition of the community of the ecosystem Select the correct answer using the codes given below: