IBPS Clerk English Language Questions with Answers Practice online test 20

Description: free IBPS Clerk English Language Questions with Answers Practice test 20 for IBPS Clerk Preliminary and Main online test Prepare bank Clerk banking mock exams adda

1 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.
What prompted one of the commentators to ask if Satya's success was, in fact, a slap in our face?
A.  India is a developing country and the people belonging to lower-middle class do not get appropriate opportunity to develop their skills B.    There is no scope of promotion for a poor fellow, however intelligent he may be.
C.  Corporate India is dominated by family business and no person other than one from the family can easily reach the top position of that corporate office D.    In India blood relation is given more importance than intelligence
E.    All the above
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
2 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.
Which of the following is/are not true in the context of the given passage?

(A) A handful of important companies such as Tata group, HDFC, ICICI and L & T have had professional CEOs for a long time.

(B) Now, promoters are rapidly allowing loyal professionals to reach the top position of CEOs.

(C) The tenure of the CEO in companies like HDFC, ICICI and Tata group are so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise
A.  Only A and B B.    Only B and C
C.  Only B D.    Only A
E.    Only C
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
3 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.
Why has it been said that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented manager?
A.  Because most of the multinational companies take most important decisions in the country of their origin and the promising leader has to go there and come back to India if they want to rise B.    Because most of the organisations do not want to give chance even to a talented Indian manager
C.  Because Indian companies are not so advanced and hence there is very little opportunity of growth here even for talented managers. D.    Because the mindset of Indian corporate business houses is such that they prefer foreign talents to Indian talent
E.    None of these
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
4 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.
What suggestions has/have been made by the author for Indian companies trying to succeed globally?
A.  Indian companies should open their branches abroad B.    Indian companies should urge the Govt of India for relaxing its immigration policy.
C.  Special provisions should be made for foreign companies D.    Indian companies must be more open to talented professionals.
E.    All the above
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
5 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
$Emulate$
A.  neglect B.    mock
C.  mimic D.    formulat
E.    follow
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
6 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
$Emasculate$
A.  strenthen B.    debilitate
C.  assist D.    help
E.    aid
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
7 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
$Behemoths$
A.  brothers B.    guys
C.  gaints D.    leaders
E.    scholars
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
8 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.

Choose the word/group of words which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning of the word/ group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
$Ceding$
A.  conceding B.    capitulating
C.  waiving D.    holding
E.    conveying
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
9 . Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases in the passage are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

When we Indians are starved of things to feel proud about, the appointment of Satya Nadella as the CEO of the iconic Microsoft has given us a reason to take pride in the success of a fellow Indian.

Not only is Satya Indian by birth, he went to ordinary schools and colleges, got to the top on his own merit and, most of all, remained a nice, normal and humble guy. We can relate to Satya and his journey in a way that we can't relate to, say, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, and that's what is so inspiring. In his success, we see the possibility of our own success. At a time where young people are looking for role models to $emulate$, Satya is certainly a wonderful one. However, at least one commentator has stirred a hornet's nest by asking if Satya's success is, in fact, a slap in our face. Could Satya have become the CEO of a major Indian company? Or did he have to leave the country to succeed? Cor porate India is dominated by family businesses. The right genes are still an important requisite for ultimate success. But this is changing slowly Even promoters are slowly $ceding$ the CEO job to loyal professionals. There are a handful of important companies where shareholding is diversified and that have had professional CEOs for a long time: the Tata group, HDFC,ICICI and Larsen & Toubro, for example. The problem here is that there are so few of them and the CEO tenure in these firms is so long that it creates few opportunities for new leaders to rise.

Our many public sector companies $emasculate$ their leaders so much that no competent professional would seriously consider leading these important $behemoths$. Finally, there are multinationals like HUL, Suzuki and Samsung. In these firms, most important decisions are made outside India and so, a promising leader has to leave India and get back to headquarters to rise. So, it is indeed true that India is still a small pond for an ambitious and talented professional manager. Hopefully, as Indian firms globalise and professionalise and more entrepreneurial firms achieve scale, this will change. But in the short term, the best opportunities for the very best talent are still outside India. Another question worth asking is whether a nonIndian immigrant could have risen to the top of one of our iconic firms. The strength of the US is that it is able to attract and $assimilate$ immigrants of incredible ability. Intel, Google and Yahoo! were all started by immigrants. Indian immigrants run important firms such as Microsoft, Master Card and Pepsi. But how attractive and open is India to global talent?

Would, and could, a brilliant Bangladeshi, Nepali or Sri Lankan make it to the top in India? Could an American or European be a future CEO of Mahindra, Airtel or Infosys? Globally, business success is increasingly driven by innovation and entrepreneurship and skilled talent do disproportionately well.

As Indian companies try to succeed globally, they must become more open to talent carrying different passports. India will need to examine immigration policies to welcome skilled professionals.

For all our complaints about the US' restrictions on immigration of skilled workers, we ourselves remain quite closed. If we could make India a less challenging place to do business and if we could become more welcoming of high-end talent regardless of nationality we would reverse the brain drain and become a magnet for innovators and entrepreneurs who would revitalise our economy in unimaginable ways.
$Assimilate$
A.  exclude B.    comprehend
C.  grasp D.    incorporate
E.    take in
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum
10 . Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is 'No error', the answer is 5). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.)
1) Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the leader of internationally recognised terror outfit / 2) Laskar-e-Taiba, which carried on horrific attack / 3) in Mumbai, was placed / 4) under house arrest in Lahore. / 5) No error
A.  1 B.    2
C.  3 D.    4
E.    5
explanation View Answer notepad Workspace report-error Report discuss Discuss in Forum

© 2017 by IBPSadda . All Rights Reserved | Copyright | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy

Contact us: info@ibpsadda.com