You are on page 1of 2


1. [The World Bank believes globalization has helped] reduce poverty in a

large number of developing countries.
2. [According to advocates, farmers can benefit from globalization] by
promoting their goods worldwide via the Internet.

3. [Critics of globalization believe] it is actually widening the gap between

the rich and poor.
4. [According to a U.N.-sponsored organization’s study,] only a few
developing countries have [actually] benefited [from globalization /
integration into the world economy].
5. [According to the study,] the poor, the illiterate, unskilled workers, and
indigenous peoples [have not benefited].
6. [Small businesses around the world might have to compete with] large-
scale manufacturers or superstores like Wal-Mart [in the future].

7. [By “there is no turning back” after globalization, the writer means that]
advances in technology, combined with more open policies have already
created an interconnected world.

Globalization, for one, has increased the sense of insecurity. Natural and
man made disasters, including forest fires, earthquakes, big industrial
accidents and various transport calamities, have added to the feeling of
being under siege. According to a joint study by Poland's center for
Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and B.T.Collins, a
management consultancy firm, growing globalization coincided with an
increased frequency of both man made and natural disasters.

Part of this fear is irrational. After all, earthquakes are not a result of the
rise in free trade. What has changed is that telecommunications and
media coverage has now ensured that such disasters are reported from
the remotest corners.

But part of the perception of increased risk is justified. Some

technologies are indeed making the world a riskier place, creating new
potential hazards such as untried drugs, and genetically modified crops,
as well as innovations that can ruin the best-laid plans. Blow ups of
markets and firms often reflect risks in the real world. Terrorism or even
rumors of it can trigger off a scare and send fortunes sinking. A new
epidemic such as SARS can ruin an entire industry.

And yet at the face of such dangers, for most people in rich countries, life
has become much safer in a number of important ways. Over the past
century, life expectancy has risen by fifteen years. The environment and
the workplace has become less hazardous, democracy has spread. Wars
in rich countries have become a remote possibility. Even the threat of
terrorism has become less of a probability, in countries like Scotland,
Italy, or Poland.
So it wont be fair to say that life has become riskier, but some risks have
become smaller, others have shifted to different people, and new ones
have burgeoned to take their place.

Which of the following statements imply that it is not strictly true to

say life has become more risky?
i.Risks have shifted to different people and new ones have taken their
ii.Life expectancy of people in rich countries has increased
iii.Diseases have become less lethal and
iv.There is heightened possibility of wars in rich countries

a. i and iv only

ii and iii

c. iii only

d. iv only

ii and iv

Large companies that operate in more than one country

a) CEO, b) MNCs, c) NGOs