The various consequences of (a) / the decision taken by the (b) / finance ministry was not foreseen by the bureaucrats. (c) / No error (d). ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The various consequences of (a) / the decision taken by the (b) / finance ministry was not foreseen by the bureaucrats. (c) / No error (d).

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The Government of India has taken out a portion from the remit of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and has made it a new Ministry. What is the name of the new ministry?....

QA->TheReserve Bank of India (RBI) in August 2016 constituted which committee to lookat various facets of household finance in India?....

QA->If any question arises whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not, the decision of the……….shall be final:....

QA->The chief executive officer of LIC Housing Finance who has been arrested by CBI in connection with an alleged multi-crore housing finance racket?....

QA->Finance and Law minister of Kerala who resigned on November 10, 2015 after Kerala High Court upheld the vigilance court"s order to conduct further probe into bar bribery scandal, in which the finance minister is involved?....

MCQ-> Study tin following information carefully and answer the questions given below: Following are the conditions for selecting a Manager Finance in an organization. The candidate must- (i) be a graduate in any discipline with at least 50% marks. (ii) have completed Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in Management with specialization in Finance with at least 65% marks (iii) have post qualification work experience of at least 4 years in the finance department of all organization. (iv) be at least 26 years and not more than 36 years as on 01.12.2011. In the case of a candidate who fulfils all the conditions except- (a) at (ii) above, but has secured at least 60% marks in post-graduate degree/diploma in management with specialization in Finance and at least 70% marks in Graduation. his/her case is to be referred to DGM - Finance (b) at (iii) above, but has post qualification work experience of at least two years as Assistant Finance Manager. his/her case is to be referred to GM-Finance. In each question below. details of one candidate are provided. You have to take one of the following courses of action based on the conditions given above and the information provided in each question and mark the number of that course of action as your answer. You are not to assume anything other than the information provided in each question. All these cases are given to you as on 01.12.2011. Mark answer (1) if the candidate is to be selected. Mark answer (2) if the data provided are inadequate to take a decision. Mark answer (3) if the candidate is not to be selected. Mark answer (4) if the case is to be referred to DGM-Finance. Mark answer (5) if the case is to be referred to GM-Finance. Now read the information provided in each question and mark your answer accordingly.Raman Sharma was born on 19th March 1981. He has been working in the finance department of an organization for the past six years. He has secured 65% marks in B.Com. and 75% marks In his post graduate degree in management with finance specialization.
....

MCQ->The various consequences of (a) / the decision taken by the (b) / finance ministry was not foreseen by the bureaucrats. (c) / No error (d).....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below: Following are the conditions for selecting Manager- Finance in an organisation: The candidate must — (i) be a graduate in any discipline with at least 50 percent marks. (ii) be a postgraduate in Management with specialisation in Finance. (iii) be at least 25 years and not more than 35 years as on 1.2.2013. (iv) have post qualification work experience of at least two years in the Accounts/Finance department of an organization (v) have secured at least 40 percent marks in the selection process. In the case of a candidate who satisfies all other criteria EXCEPT (A) at (ii) above, but has worked as Deputy Manager - Finance in an organization for at least three years, his/her case is to be referred to General Manager- Finance. (B) at (v) above, but has secured at least 70 percent marks in post graduation, his/her case is to be referred to President-Finance.In each question below, detailed information of one candidate is provided. You have to take one of the following courses of action based on the information provided and the conditions and subconditions given above and mark your answer accordingly. You are not to assume anything other than the information provided in case of each candidate. All these cases are given to you as on 1.2.2013Mark answer a: if the candidate is not to be selected. Mark answer b: if the data Provided are not adequate to take a decision. Mark answer c: if the case is to be referred to General Manager-Finance. Mark answer d: if the case is to be referred to President-Finance. Mark answer e: if the candidate is to be selected.Geeta Kothari was born on 10th September 1980. She has been working in the Finance Department of an organization for the past four years after completing her MBA with Finance specialisation. She has secured 50 percent marks in the selection process.
....

MCQ->There are 240 second year students in a B - School. The Finance area offers 3 electives in the second year. These are Financial Derivatives, Behavioural Finance, and Security Analysis. Four students have taken all the three electives, and 48 students have taken Financial Derivatives. There are twice as many students who study Financial Derivatives and Security Analysis but not Behavioural Finance, as those who study both Financial Derivatives and Behavioural Finance but not Security Analysis, and 4 times as many who study all the three. 124 students study Security Analysis. There are 59 students who could not muster courage to take up any of these subjects. The group of students who study both Financial Derivatives and Security Analysis but not Behavioural Finance, is exactly the same as the group made up of students who study both Behavioural Finance and Security Analysis. How many students study Behavioural Finance only?....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....