Mock 3 – Reading Comprehension Passages (Part 3)

Read the following passage and answer the five questions that follow.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), air pollution is now comparable to other global health risks like unhealthy diets and smoking tobacco. It is recognised "as the single biggest environmental threat to human health". WHO guidelines, which are not legally binding and intended as a reference for policymakers, advocacy groups and academics, stipulate permissible concentrations of six pollutants known to have impacts on health: two types of particulate matter known as PM_2.5 and PM₁₀, as well as Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulphur dioxide and Carbon monoxide. The guidelines could also send a message to the wider public about lifestyle and business choices - whether it is driving cars and trucks, disposing of garbage, working in industrial jobs or farming. WHO says the main human-generated sources of air pollution can vary geographically but include the energy and transportation sectors, as well as waste dumpsites and home cooking and heating. It advised people to do their part by changing their lifestyles - not running car engines uselessly; avoiding use of plastics that could end up being incinerated; and walking, riding bikes or using public transportation to get to work.

It should be noted that "because of air pollution, the simple act of breathing contributes to 7 million deaths a year. Almost everyone around the world is exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution". The harmful health effects of air pollution kick in at lower levels than previously thought, the World Health Organisation has said as it has set a new standard for policymakers and the public in the first update of its air quality guidelines in 15 years. Since the last update of the WHO recommendations, better monitoring and science have cleared up the global picture about the effects of six major air pollutants on human health. According to the agency, 90% of the world's people already live in areas with at least one particularly harmful type of pollutant.

Read the passage and answer questions from 46 to 50.

To start, we must recall what made historical colonialism distinctive. Colonialism was a form of economic and social organization dominated by major colonial powers such as Britain, France, Spain, and later the United States. It is now usually regarded as historically closed, ended by the decolonising movements of the later twentieth century, although in politics and other areas, neocolonial forms of power live on. Now it is the continuity from the older colonialism to a new form of colonialism — data colonialism. There were four key components to historical colonialism: the appropriation of resources; the evolution of highly unequal social and economic relations that secured resource appropriation, including slavery and other forms of forced labour as well as unequal trading relations; a massively unequal global distribution of the benefits of resource appropriation; and the spread of ideologies to make sense of all this. For example, the reframing of colonial appropriation as the release of natural resources, the government of inferior peoples, and the bringing of civilization to the World. In describing the transformations underway today as data colonialism, we use the term colonialism not because we are looking for a metaphor but because it captures major structural phases within human history and specifically within capitalism. Colonialism has not been the standard reading of what is changing in contemporary capitalism. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism's current growth cannot be captured in terms of ever-more ambitious business integration or the ever expanding exploitation of workers.

Read the passage and answer questions from 46 to 50.

To start, we must recall what made historical colonialism distinctive. Colonialism was a form of economic and social organization dominated by major colonial powers such as Britain, France, Spain, and later the United States. It is now usually regarded as historically closed, ended by the decolonising movements of the later twentieth century, although in politics and other areas, neocolonial forms of power live on. Now it is the continuity from the older colonialism to a new form of colonialism — data colonialism. There were four key components to historical colonialism: the appropriation of resources; the evolution of highly unequal social and economic relations that secured resource appropriation, including slavery and other forms of forced labour as well as unequal trading relations; a massively unequal global distribution of the benefits of resource appropriation; and the spread of ideologies to make sense of all this. For example, the reframing of colonial appropriation as the release of natural resources, the government of inferior peoples, and the bringing of civilization to the World. In describing the transformations underway today as data colonialism, we use the term colonialism not because we are looking for a metaphor but because it captures major structural phases within human history and specifically within capitalism. Colonialism has not been the standard reading of what is changing in contemporary capitalism. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism's current growth cannot be captured in terms of ever-more ambitious business integration or the ever expanding exploitation of workers.

Read the passage and answer questions from 46 to 50.

To start, we must recall what made historical colonialism distinctive. Colonialism was a form of economic and social organization dominated by major colonial powers such as Britain, France, Spain, and later the United States. It is now usually regarded as historically closed, ended by the decolonising movements of the later twentieth century, although in politics and other areas, neocolonial forms of power live on. Now it is the continuity from the older colonialism to a new form of colonialism — data colonialism. There were four key components to historical colonialism: the appropriation of resources; the evolution of highly unequal social and economic relations that secured resource appropriation, including slavery and other forms of forced labour as well as unequal trading relations; a massively unequal global distribution of the benefits of resource appropriation; and the spread of ideologies to make sense of all this. For example, the reframing of colonial appropriation as the release of natural resources, the government of inferior peoples, and the bringing of civilization to the World. In describing the transformations underway today as data colonialism, we use the term colonialism not because we are looking for a metaphor but because it captures major structural phases within human history and specifically within capitalism. Colonialism has not been the standard reading of what is changing in contemporary capitalism. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism's current growth cannot be captured in terms of ever-more ambitious business integration or the ever expanding exploitation of workers.

Read the passage and answer questions from 46 to 50.

To start, we must recall what made historical colonialism distinctive. Colonialism was a form of economic and social organization dominated by major colonial powers such as Britain, France, Spain, and later the United States. It is now usually regarded as historically closed, ended by the decolonising movements of the later twentieth century, although in politics and other areas, neocolonial forms of power live on. Now it is the continuity from the older colonialism to a new form of colonialism — data colonialism. There were four key components to historical colonialism: the appropriation of resources; the evolution of highly unequal social and economic relations that secured resource appropriation, including slavery and other forms of forced labour as well as unequal trading relations; a massively unequal global distribution of the benefits of resource appropriation; and the spread of ideologies to make sense of all this. For example, the reframing of colonial appropriation as the release of natural resources, the government of inferior peoples, and the bringing of civilization to the World. In describing the transformations underway today as data colonialism, we use the term colonialism not because we are looking for a metaphor but because it captures major structural phases within human history and specifically within capitalism. Colonialism has not been the standard reading of what is changing in contemporary capitalism. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism's current growth cannot be captured in terms of ever-more ambitious business integration or the ever expanding exploitation of workers.

Read the passage and answer questions from 46 to 50.

To start, we must recall what made historical colonialism distinctive. Colonialism was a form of economic and social organization dominated by major colonial powers such as Britain, France, Spain, and later the United States. It is now usually regarded as historically closed, ended by the decolonising movements of the later twentieth century, although in politics and other areas, neocolonial forms of power live on. Now it is the continuity from the older colonialism to a new form of colonialism — data colonialism. There were four key components to historical colonialism: the appropriation of resources; the evolution of highly unequal social and economic relations that secured resource appropriation, including slavery and other forms of forced labour as well as unequal trading relations; a massively unequal global distribution of the benefits of resource appropriation; and the spread of ideologies to make sense of all this. For example, the reframing of colonial appropriation as the release of natural resources, the government of inferior peoples, and the bringing of civilization to the World. In describing the transformations underway today as data colonialism, we use the term colonialism not because we are looking for a metaphor but because it captures major structural phases within human history and specifically within capitalism. Colonialism has not been the standard reading of what is changing in contemporary capitalism. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that capitalism's current growth cannot be captured in terms of ever-more ambitious business integration or the ever expanding exploitation of workers.

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

The medium of public discussion is unique and without historical prototypes. Previously the estates of religion and nobility had negotiated contracts with their princes in which claims to power were defined on a case-by-case basis. As we know, this development followed a different course in England, where princely power was relativised through Parliament, more than on the continent. The third estate of nobility then broke with this mode of equalizing power, for it could no longer establish itself as a ruling estate. Given a commercial economy, a division of authority accomplished through differentiation of the rights of those possessing feudal authority, liberties belonging to the estates, was no longer possible – the power under private law of disposition of capitalist property is non-political. The bourgeois are private persons; as such, they do not rule. Thus their claims to power in opposition to public power are directed not against a concentration of authority that should be divided but rather against the principle of established authority. The principle of control, namely publicness, that the bourgeois public opposes to the principle of established authority, aims at a transformation of authority as such, not merely the exchange on the basis of legitimation of another. In the first modern constitutions the sections listing basic rights provide an image of the liberal model of public sphere; they guarantee society as a sphere of private autonomy; opposite it stands a public power limited to a few functions.

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

The medium of public discussion is unique and without historical prototypes. Previously the estates of religion and nobility had negotiated contracts with their princes in which claims to power were defined on a case-by-case basis. As we know, this development followed a different course in England, where princely power was relativised through Parliament, more than on the continent. The third estate of nobility then broke with this mode of equalizing power, for it could no longer establish itself as a ruling estate. Given a commercial economy, a division of authority accomplished through differentiation of the rights of those possessing feudal authority, liberties belonging to the estates, was no longer possible – the power under private law of disposition of capitalist property is non-political. The bourgeois are private persons; as such, they do not rule. Thus their claims to power in opposition to public power are directed not against a concentration of authority that should be divided but rather against the principle of established authority. The principle of control, namely publicness, that the bourgeois public opposes to the principle of established authority, aims at a transformation of authority as such, not merely the exchange on the basis of legitimation of another. In the first modern constitutions the sections listing basic rights provide an image of the liberal model of public sphere; they guarantee society as a sphere of private autonomy; opposite it stands a public power limited to a few functions.

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

The medium of public discussion is unique and without historical prototypes. Previously the estates of religion and nobility had negotiated contracts with their princes in which claims to power were defined on a case-by-case basis. As we know, this development followed a different course in England, where princely power was relativised through Parliament, more than on the continent. The third estate of nobility then broke with this mode of equalizing power, for it could no longer establish itself as a ruling estate. Given a commercial economy, a division of authority accomplished through differentiation of the rights of those possessing feudal authority, liberties belonging to the estates, was no longer possible – the power under private law of disposition of capitalist property is non-political. The bourgeois are private persons; as such, they do not rule. Thus their claims to power in opposition to public power are directed not against a concentration of authority that should be divided but rather against the principle of established authority. The principle of control, namely publicness, that the bourgeois public opposes to the principle of established authority, aims at a transformation of authority as such, not merely the exchange on the basis of legitimation of another. In the first modern constitutions the sections listing basic rights provide an image of the liberal model of public sphere; they guarantee society as a sphere of private autonomy; opposite it stands a public power limited to a few functions.

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

The medium of public discussion is unique and without historical prototypes. Previously the estates of religion and nobility had negotiated contracts with their princes in which claims to power were defined on a case-by-case basis. As we know, this development followed a different course in England, where princely power was relativised through Parliament, more than on the continent. The third estate of nobility then broke with this mode of equalizing power, for it could no longer establish itself as a ruling estate. Given a commercial economy, a division of authority accomplished through differentiation of the rights of those possessing feudal authority, liberties belonging to the estates, was no longer possible – the power under private law of disposition of capitalist property is non-political. The bourgeois are private persons; as such, they do not rule. Thus their claims to power in opposition to public power are directed not against a concentration of authority that should be divided but rather against the principle of established authority. The principle of control, namely publicness, that the bourgeois public opposes to the principle of established authority, aims at a transformation of authority as such, not merely the exchange on the basis of legitimation of another. In the first modern constitutions the sections listing basic rights provide an image of the liberal model of public sphere; they guarantee society as a sphere of private autonomy; opposite it stands a public power limited to a few functions.

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.

The medium of public discussion is unique and without historical prototypes. Previously the estates of religion and nobility had negotiated contracts with their princes in which claims to power were defined on a case-by-case basis. As we know, this development followed a different course in England, where princely power was relativised through Parliament, more than on the continent. The third estate of nobility then broke with this mode of equalizing power, for it could no longer establish itself as a ruling estate. Given a commercial economy, a division of authority accomplished through differentiation of the rights of those possessing feudal authority, liberties belonging to the estates, was no longer possible – the power under private law of disposition of capitalist property is non-political. The bourgeois are private persons; as such, they do not rule. Thus their claims to power in opposition to public power are directed not against a concentration of authority that should be divided but rather against the principle of established authority. The principle of control, namely publicness, that the bourgeois public opposes to the principle of established authority, aims at a transformation of authority as such, not merely the exchange on the basis of legitimation of another. In the first modern constitutions the sections listing basic rights provide an image of the liberal model of public sphere; they guarantee society as a sphere of private autonomy; opposite it stands a public power limited to a few functions.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

A very important policy that governments can undertake to boost development is to provide public goods that contribute to economic growth and prosperity. One such public good is the economic infrastructure, including a physical infrastructure of roads, railroads, airports, utilities, ports, and the like, which are necessary to allow trade and exchange; and such economic institutions as financial and monetary systems, which permit people to make payments and investments easily. A social infrastructure too – public health and sanitation, education, urban planning – can encourage growth and development by allowing citizens to focus their efforts on economic activity in a productive way. In contrast, if the Government does not build and maintain roads and schools, impedes normal banking operations, allows prices to spiral out of control, and fails to control diseases and social problems, it is hard to imagine how the economy can develop. Another critical function for government is to ensure the security of property. After all, economic growth requires everyone, from farmers to factory owners, to invest in improving their ability to produce, and such improvements are unlikely to be made if property rights are not safe. Secure property rights – which people in developed countries take for granted – mean that a property owner can be confident that his or her material goods will not be seized arbitrarily. A commitment to protect private property is not necessarily something that benefits only the rich; in most poor societies, the principal property owners are farmers.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

A very important policy that governments can undertake to boost development is to provide public goods that contribute to economic growth and prosperity. One such public good is the economic infrastructure, including a physical infrastructure of roads, railroads, airports, utilities, ports, and the like, which are necessary to allow trade and exchange; and such economic institutions as financial and monetary systems, which permit people to make payments and investments easily. A social infrastructure too – public health and sanitation, education, urban planning – can encourage growth and development by allowing citizens to focus their efforts on economic activity in a productive way. In contrast, if the Government does not build and maintain roads and schools, impedes normal banking operations, allows prices to spiral out of control, and fails to control diseases and social problems, it is hard to imagine how the economy can develop. Another critical function for government is to ensure the security of property. After all, economic growth requires everyone, from farmers to factory owners, to invest in improving their ability to produce, and such improvements are unlikely to be made if property rights are not safe. Secure property rights – which people in developed countries take for granted – mean that a property owner can be confident that his or her material goods will not be seized arbitrarily. A commitment to protect private property is not necessarily something that benefits only the rich; in most poor societies, the principal property owners are farmers.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

A very important policy that governments can undertake to boost development is to provide public goods that contribute to economic growth and prosperity. One such public good is the economic infrastructure, including a physical infrastructure of roads, railroads, airports, utilities, ports, and the like, which are necessary to allow trade and exchange; and such economic institutions as financial and monetary systems, which permit people to make payments and investments easily. A social infrastructure too – public health and sanitation, education, urban planning – can encourage growth and development by allowing citizens to focus their efforts on economic activity in a productive way. In contrast, if the Government does not build and maintain roads and schools, impedes normal banking operations, allows prices to spiral out of control, and fails to control diseases and social problems, it is hard to imagine how the economy can develop. Another critical function for government is to ensure the security of property. After all, economic growth requires everyone, from farmers to factory owners, to invest in improving their ability to produce, and such improvements are unlikely to be made if property rights are not safe. Secure property rights – which people in developed countries take for granted – mean that a property owner can be confident that his or her material goods will not be seized arbitrarily. A commitment to protect private property is not necessarily something that benefits only the rich; in most poor societies, the principal property owners are farmers.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

A very important policy that governments can undertake to boost development is to provide public goods that contribute to economic growth and prosperity. One such public good is the economic infrastructure, including a physical infrastructure of roads, railroads, airports, utilities, ports, and the like, which are necessary to allow trade and exchange; and such economic institutions as financial and monetary systems, which permit people to make payments and investments easily. A social infrastructure too – public health and sanitation, education, urban planning – can encourage growth and development by allowing citizens to focus their efforts on economic activity in a productive way. In contrast, if the Government does not build and maintain roads and schools, impedes normal banking operations, allows prices to spiral out of control, and fails to control diseases and social problems, it is hard to imagine how the economy can develop. Another critical function for government is to ensure the security of property. After all, economic growth requires everyone, from farmers to factory owners, to invest in improving their ability to produce, and such improvements are unlikely to be made if property rights are not safe. Secure property rights – which people in developed countries take for granted – mean that a property owner can be confident that his or her material goods will not be seized arbitrarily. A commitment to protect private property is not necessarily something that benefits only the rich; in most poor societies, the principal property owners are farmers.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

A very important policy that governments can undertake to boost development is to provide public goods that contribute to economic growth and prosperity. One such public good is the economic infrastructure, including a physical infrastructure of roads, railroads, airports, utilities, ports, and the like, which are necessary to allow trade and exchange; and such economic institutions as financial and monetary systems, which permit people to make payments and investments easily. A social infrastructure too – public health and sanitation, education, urban planning – can encourage growth and development by allowing citizens to focus their efforts on economic activity in a productive way. In contrast, if the Government does not build and maintain roads and schools, impedes normal banking operations, allows prices to spiral out of control, and fails to control diseases and social problems, it is hard to imagine how the economy can develop. Another critical function for government is to ensure the security of property. After all, economic growth requires everyone, from farmers to factory owners, to invest in improving their ability to produce, and such improvements are unlikely to be made if property rights are not safe. Secure property rights – which people in developed countries take for granted – mean that a property owner can be confident that his or her material goods will not be seized arbitrarily. A commitment to protect private property is not necessarily something that benefits only the rich; in most poor societies, the principal property owners are farmers.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Trade policy typically reaches the public consciousness, and the media, when some national producers complain that there is distorted trade in the goods they produce. Often, producers are concerned because imported goods cut into their profits or cost them their jobs. Other producers may complain that foreign barriers to their goods keep them out of markets abroad and similarly cut into profits and cost jobs at home. To understand the domestic politics of trade, we need to know the interest in question, the institutions through which these interests are expressed, and how competing interests interact with one another. There are both benefits and costs to trade barriers. Virtually all tools of trade protection – tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions – make imports more expensive, which allows domestic producers to sell more of their products, to raise their prices, or both. When tariffs are imposed on foreign steel imported into the United States, American steelmakers can expand sales at higher prices. As a result, they may be able to increase profits, raise wages, and hire more workers. Quotas, which restrict the quality of foreign goods sold in the national market, ultimately have a similar impact in that the reduction in imports reduces supply, thus raising prices. So trade barriers assist national producers. The most direct cost of protection is to consumers of the protected good. Producers gain and consumers lose from protection. A trade barrier introduces economic inefficiencies. It leads consumers to consume less of those goods that protection has made artificially expensive.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Trade policy typically reaches the public consciousness, and the media, when some national producers complain that there is distorted trade in the goods they produce. Often, producers are concerned because imported goods cut into their profits or cost them their jobs. Other producers may complain that foreign barriers to their goods keep them out of markets abroad and similarly cut into profits and cost jobs at home. To understand the domestic politics of trade, we need to know the interest in question, the institutions through which these interests are expressed, and how competing interests interact with one another. There are both benefits and costs to trade barriers. Virtually all tools of trade protection – tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions – make imports more expensive, which allows domestic producers to sell more of their products, to raise their prices, or both. When tariffs are imposed on foreign steel imported into the United States, American steelmakers can expand sales at higher prices. As a result, they may be able to increase profits, raise wages, and hire more workers. Quotas, which restrict the quality of foreign goods sold in the national market, ultimately have a similar impact in that the reduction in imports reduces supply, thus raising prices. So trade barriers assist national producers. The most direct cost of protection is to consumers of the protected good. Producers gain and consumers lose from protection. A trade barrier introduces economic inefficiencies. It leads consumers to consume less of those goods that protection has made artificially expensive.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Trade policy typically reaches the public consciousness, and the media, when some national producers complain that there is distorted trade in the goods they produce. Often, producers are concerned because imported goods cut into their profits or cost them their jobs. Other producers may complain that foreign barriers to their goods keep them out of markets abroad and similarly cut into profits and cost jobs at home. To understand the domestic politics of trade, we need to know the interest in question, the institutions through which these interests are expressed, and how competing interests interact with one another. There are both benefits and costs to trade barriers. Virtually all tools of trade protection – tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions – make imports more expensive, which allows domestic producers to sell more of their products, to raise their prices, or both. When tariffs are imposed on foreign steel imported into the United States, American steelmakers can expand sales at higher prices. As a result, they may be able to increase profits, raise wages, and hire more workers. Quotas, which restrict the quality of foreign goods sold in the national market, ultimately have a similar impact in that the reduction in imports reduces supply, thus raising prices. So trade barriers assist national producers. The most direct cost of protection is to consumers of the protected good. Producers gain and consumers lose from protection. A trade barrier introduces economic inefficiencies. It leads consumers to consume less of those goods that protection has made artificially expensive.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Trade policy typically reaches the public consciousness, and the media, when some national producers complain that there is distorted trade in the goods they produce. Often, producers are concerned because imported goods cut into their profits or cost them their jobs. Other producers may complain that foreign barriers to their goods keep them out of markets abroad and similarly cut into profits and cost jobs at home. To understand the domestic politics of trade, we need to know the interest in question, the institutions through which these interests are expressed, and how competing interests interact with one another. There are both benefits and costs to trade barriers. Virtually all tools of trade protection – tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions – make imports more expensive, which allows domestic producers to sell more of their products, to raise their prices, or both. When tariffs are imposed on foreign steel imported into the United States, American steelmakers can expand sales at higher prices. As a result, they may be able to increase profits, raise wages, and hire more workers. Quotas, which restrict the quality of foreign goods sold in the national market, ultimately have a similar impact in that the reduction in imports reduces supply, thus raising prices. So trade barriers assist national producers. The most direct cost of protection is to consumers of the protected good. Producers gain and consumers lose from protection. A trade barrier introduces economic inefficiencies. It leads consumers to consume less of those goods that protection has made artificially expensive.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Trade policy typically reaches the public consciousness, and the media, when some national producers complain that there is distorted trade in the goods they produce. Often, producers are concerned because imported goods cut into their profits or cost them their jobs. Other producers may complain that foreign barriers to their goods keep them out of markets abroad and similarly cut into profits and cost jobs at home. To understand the domestic politics of trade, we need to know the interest in question, the institutions through which these interests are expressed, and how competing interests interact with one another. There are both benefits and costs to trade barriers. Virtually all tools of trade protection – tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions – make imports more expensive, which allows domestic producers to sell more of their products, to raise their prices, or both. When tariffs are imposed on foreign steel imported into the United States, American steelmakers can expand sales at higher prices. As a result, they may be able to increase profits, raise wages, and hire more workers. Quotas, which restrict the quality of foreign goods sold in the national market, ultimately have a similar impact in that the reduction in imports reduces supply, thus raising prices. So trade barriers assist national producers. The most direct cost of protection is to consumers of the protected good. Producers gain and consumers lose from protection. A trade barrier introduces economic inefficiencies. It leads consumers to consume less of those goods that protection has made artificially expensive.

Read the given passage and answer the five questions that follow.

Social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were not in the first instance trying to give empirical accounts of how State arose. They were attempting, rather to understand a government's basis of legitimacy. But it is still worth thinking through whether the first states could have arisen through some form of explicit agreement among tribesmen to establish a centralised authority. Thomas Hobbes lays out the basic "deal" underlying the State: in return for giving up the right to do whatever one pleases, the State (or Leviathan) through its monopoly of force guarantees each citizen basic security. The State can provide other kinds of public goods as well, like property rights, roads, currency, uniform weights and measures, and external defence, which citizens cannot obtain on their own.

In return, citizens give the State the right to tax, conscript, and otherwise demand things of them. Tribal societies can provide only limited public goods because of their lack of centralised authority. So if the State arose by a social contract, we would have to posit that at some point in history, a tribal group decided voluntarily to delegate dictatorial powers to one individual to rule over them. The delegation would not be temporary, as in the election of a tribal chief, but permanent, to the king and all his descendants. And it would have to be on the basis of consensus on the part of all of the tribal segments, each of which had the option of simply wandering off if it did not like the deal. It seems highly unlikely that the first State arose out of an explicit social contract if the issue motivating it were simply economic, like the protection of property rights or the public goods. Tribal societies are egalitarian and close-knit kinship groups very free. In contrast, States are coercive and hierarchical. This means the real driver of state formation is violence or threat of violence.

Read the given passage and answer the five questions that follow.

Social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were not in the first instance trying to give empirical accounts of how State arose. They were attempting, rather to understand a government's basis of legitimacy. But it is still worth thinking through whether the first states could have arisen through some form of explicit agreement among tribesmen to establish a centralised authority. Thomas Hobbes lays out the basic "deal" underlying the State: in return for giving up the right to do whatever one pleases, the State (or Leviathan) through its monopoly of force guarantees each citizen basic security. The State can provide other kinds of public goods as well, like property rights, roads, currency, uniform weights and measures, and external defence, which citizens cannot obtain on their own.

In return, citizens give the State the right to tax, conscript, and otherwise demand things of them. Tribal societies can provide only limited public goods because of their lack of centralised authority. So if the State arose by a social contract, we would have to posit that at some point in history, a tribal group decided voluntarily to delegate dictatorial powers to one individual to rule over them. The delegation would not be temporary, as in the election of a tribal chief, but permanent, to the king and all his descendants. And it would have to be on the basis of consensus on the part of all of the tribal segments, each of which had the option of simply wandering off if it did not like the deal. It seems highly unlikely that the first State arose out of an explicit social contract if the issue motivating it were simply economic, like the protection of property rights or the public goods. Tribal societies are egalitarian and close-knit kinship groups very free. In contrast, States are coercive and hierarchical. This means the real driver of state formation is violence or threat of violence.

Read the given passage and answer the five questions that follow.

Social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were not in the first instance trying to give empirical accounts of how State arose. They were attempting, rather to understand a government's basis of legitimacy. But it is still worth thinking through whether the first states could have arisen through some form of explicit agreement among tribesmen to establish a centralised authority. Thomas Hobbes lays out the basic "deal" underlying the State: in return for giving up the right to do whatever one pleases, the State (or Leviathan) through its monopoly of force guarantees each citizen basic security. The State can provide other kinds of public goods as well, like property rights, roads, currency, uniform weights and measures, and external defence, which citizens cannot obtain on their own.

In return, citizens give the State the right to tax, conscript, and otherwise demand things of them. Tribal societies can provide only limited public goods because of their lack of centralised authority. So if the State arose by a social contract, we would have to posit that at some point in history, a tribal group decided voluntarily to delegate dictatorial powers to one individual to rule over them. The delegation would not be temporary, as in the election of a tribal chief, but permanent, to the king and all his descendants. And it would have to be on the basis of consensus on the part of all of the tribal segments, each of which had the option of simply wandering off if it did not like the deal. It seems highly unlikely that the first State arose out of an explicit social contract if the issue motivating it were simply economic, like the protection of property rights or the public goods. Tribal societies are egalitarian and close-knit kinship groups very free. In contrast, States are coercive and hierarchical. This means the real driver of state formation is violence or threat of violence.

Read the given passage and answer the five questions that follow.

Social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were not in the first instance trying to give empirical accounts of how State arose. They were attempting, rather to understand a government's basis of legitimacy. But it is still worth thinking through whether the first states could have arisen through some form of explicit agreement among tribesmen to establish a centralised authority. Thomas Hobbes lays out the basic "deal" underlying the State: in return for giving up the right to do whatever one pleases, the State (or Leviathan) through its monopoly of force guarantees each citizen basic security. The State can provide other kinds of public goods as well, like property rights, roads, currency, uniform weights and measures, and external defence, which citizens cannot obtain on their own.

In return, citizens give the State the right to tax, conscript, and otherwise demand things of them. Tribal societies can provide only limited public goods because of their lack of centralised authority. So if the State arose by a social contract, we would have to posit that at some point in history, a tribal group decided voluntarily to delegate dictatorial powers to one individual to rule over them. The delegation would not be temporary, as in the election of a tribal chief, but permanent, to the king and all his descendants. And it would have to be on the basis of consensus on the part of all of the tribal segments, each of which had the option of simply wandering off if it did not like the deal. It seems highly unlikely that the first State arose out of an explicit social contract if the issue motivating it were simply economic, like the protection of property rights or the public goods. Tribal societies are egalitarian and close-knit kinship groups very free. In contrast, States are coercive and hierarchical. This means the real driver of state formation is violence or threat of violence.

Read the given passage and answer the five questions that follow.

Social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were not in the first instance trying to give empirical accounts of how State arose. They were attempting, rather to understand a government's basis of legitimacy. But it is still worth thinking through whether the first states could have arisen through some form of explicit agreement among tribesmen to establish a centralised authority. Thomas Hobbes lays out the basic "deal" underlying the State: in return for giving up the right to do whatever one pleases, the State (or Leviathan) through its monopoly of force guarantees each citizen basic security. The State can provide other kinds of public goods as well, like property rights, roads, currency, uniform weights and measures, and external defence, which citizens cannot obtain on their own.

In return, citizens give the State the right to tax, conscript, and otherwise demand things of them. Tribal societies can provide only limited public goods because of their lack of centralised authority. So if the State arose by a social contract, we would have to posit that at some point in history, a tribal group decided voluntarily to delegate dictatorial powers to one individual to rule over them. The delegation would not be temporary, as in the election of a tribal chief, but permanent, to the king and all his descendants. And it would have to be on the basis of consensus on the part of all of the tribal segments, each of which had the option of simply wandering off if it did not like the deal. It seems highly unlikely that the first State arose out of an explicit social contract if the issue motivating it were simply economic, like the protection of property rights or the public goods. Tribal societies are egalitarian and close-knit kinship groups very free. In contrast, States are coercive and hierarchical. This means the real driver of state formation is violence or threat of violence.

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

The Sapru Committee report was published in 1945. It was an Indian attempt to propose a constitutional scheme to accommodate different domestic political interests. It too made the case for universal suffrage. The Sapru committee claimed that even though political circumstances had changed, for example, the party structure had evolved, substantial changes in such matters could occur only after full responsible government had been introduced, it said. In keeping with this rationale, it reiterated the idea that the very exercise of franchise would provide the education necessary to enable a responsible politics. The support for universal franchise could also be seen in proclamations by major political actors. Nationalist leaders viewed restrictions on the franchise as colonial attempts to curb growing disaffection. Mohandas Gandhi, who returned from South Africa in 1915 and swiftly became the face of India's entire effort at emancipation, boldly declared in 1939 that he was unworried by illiteracy. He said he would plump for an unadulterated franchise for both men and women. The contribution of B.R. Ambedkar, who took up the cause of lower sections of the society during the anti-colonial struggle, was significant in this regard. His focus on the issue of social divisions made him sensitive to restrictions on the right to vote. Qualifications based on education and property during colonial rule meant the de facto exclusion of lower sections of the society.