RC

5 - Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

In 1986, millions of Filipinos took to the streets of Manila in peaceful protest and prayer
in the People Power movement. The Marcos regime folded on the fourth day. In 2003,
the people of Georgia ousted Eduard Shevardnadze through the bloodless Rose
Revolution, in which protestors stormed the parliament building holding the flowers in
their hands. Earlier this year, the presidents of Sudan and Algeria both announced they
would step aside after decades in office, thanks to peaceful campaigns of resistance. In
each case, civil resistance by ordinary members of the public trumped the political elite
to achieve radical change.

There are many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by
Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard, confirms that civil disobedience is not
only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics.
Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that
nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns...

Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns: they
led to political change 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests. This
was partly the result of strength in numbers. Chenoweth argues that nonviolent
campaigns are more likely to succeed because they can recruit many more participants
from a much broader demographic, which can cause severe disruption that paralyses
normal urban life and the functioning of society...

Chenoweth admits that she was initially surprised by her results. But she now cites
many reasons that nonviolent protests can garner such high levels of support. Perhaps
most obviously, violent protests necessarily exclude people who abhor and fear
bloodshed, whereas peaceful protesters maintain the moral high ground.

[Nonviolent protests] also have fewer barriers to participation. You do not need to be fit
and healthy to engage in a strike, whereas violent campaigns tend to lean on the support
of physically fit young men... Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are generally
easier to discuss openly, which means that they can reach a wider audience. Violent
movements, on the other hand, require a supply of weapons, and tend to rely on more
secretive underground operations that might struggle to reach the general population.

By engaging broad support across the population, nonviolent campaigns are also more
likely to win support among the police and the military – the very groups that the
government should be leaning on to bring about order. During a peaceful street protest
of millions of people, the members of the security forces may also be more likely to fear
that their family members or friends are in the crowd – meaning that they fail to crack
down on the movement. “Or when they’re looking at the [sheer] numbers of people
involved, they may just come to the conclusion the ship has sailed, and they don’t want
to go down with the ship,” Chenoweth says.

These are very general patterns, of course, and despite being twice as successful as the
violent conflicts, peaceful resistance still failed 47% of the time... The fact remains,
however, that nonviolent campaigns are the only reliable way of maintaining that kind
of engagement.


1) The central idea of this passage is that:

(1) Non-violent protests are both ethical and successful
(2) Non-violent protests are much more effective than violent ones
(3) Violent protests succeed because more people can participate in them
(4) Non-violent protests get a lot of engagement, but still fail almost 50% of the time


2) According to the passage, peaceful protests succeed for all of the following
reasons EXCEPT

(1) The military and the police do not crack down on the protesters
(2) It is easier for non-violent protests to communicate with participants
(3) Non-violent protests are more likely to include religious sanction
(4) Non-violent protests do not need to arrange for weapons


3) Which of the following, if found to be true, would negate Chenoweth's main
conclusion?

(1) Most non-violent protests escalate to violence within a week
(2) It was found that the best way to get attention was the death of a few people
(3) Police have started arresting people on the suspicion of organising protests
(4) A recent study found that protesters are simply airing their views on social media
instead of participating in protests


4) Security forces might help non-violent protests because

(1) They do not want to hurt people who are not violent
(2) They might have orders to not hurt peaceful protesters
(3) They might have family or friends among the participants
(4) All of the above


5) The author states “the ship has sailed, and they don’t want to go down with the
ship” to explain that

(1) Protestors can escape through water-ways when security forces attack
(2) Protestors can escape quickly before security forces attack
(3) The people in power have already failed, and the security forces do not want to fail
along with them
(4) The high number of protestors make it more likely for the protest to succeed
RC 6 - Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

In 1991, the newly independent Russia, the largest of the Soviet successor states, was on
its knees economically, politically and militarily. Russia was the recipient of
international loans from lenders of last resort like the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank. Seventy years of communism, and six years of halting reform under Mikhail
Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, had
brought the economy to its knees.

Russia’s newly elected president, Yeltsin, faced a hostile parliament, which a few years
later would attempt to impeach him as he tried to institute sweeping economic reform.

Improbably, only 25 years later, Russia has recovered from the chaos that consumed it
to challenge the post-Cold War world order. Some analysts (although not this one) even
think we have entered a new Cold War. How did we get here? Rather than focusing on
things like whether NATO expansion into Eastern Europe awakened a hostile Russian
bear, we should look at two broader issues.

One mistake was to discount Russia’s importance in international affairs. The U.S.
became engrossed in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, thinking that Russia was weak, and
generally unimportant. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. assumed that the
world was unipolar after the Cold War, and that it would always be so.

Russia’s resurrection as a global disrupter has happened more than once historically –
under Catherine the Great, Peter the Great and of course during the Soviet period. Why
should we be surprised that it has happened again?

Although a pale shadow of the Soviet Union, Russia’s geography does make it an
enduringly significant international player. It shares more international borders than
any other state in the world except China. Russia has also proved again and again that it
is not merely a “regional power” as President Obama once called it. Under President
Putin, Russia’s international ambitions are clearly not regional, and its global reach
through conventional (Syria) and nonconventional (cyber) means demonstrate that its
capacity to influence the politics of other countries is most certainly not limited to
countries with which it shares a border.

A second mistake is in Western policymakers’ failure — in the last five years — to
recognize that what constitutes power in the post-Cold War era is not the same as it has
always been. A country’s ability to influence the internal affairs of another is no longer
merely the sum of its gross domestic product, its military and the size of its population.
If that were still true, then clearly Russia today would be nothing to worry about.

Yet, even with an economy that comprises 3 percent of global gross domestic product, a
military that is tiny in comparison to its American or Chinese counterparts, and close to
zero population growth, Russia is challenging the post-Cold War international order. If
Russian cyber hackers on the instruction of Putin’s administration indeed managed to
breech the integrity of the U.S. electoral system, then it is powerful enough to challenge
not only the foundations of American democracy, but also American unilateralism.


1) The main purpose of this passage is

(1) To explain that Russia is a powerful country
(2) To explain how Russia has grown powerful again
(3) To warn the reader not to underestimate Russia
(4) To try and make Russia fail


2) The passage mentions all the following issues with Russia EXCEPT

(1) Communism, which brought Russia down
(2) Lack of funds, requiring loans
(3) Hostile political situation during the Cold War
(4) Lack of a cohesive parliament working for Russia


3) According to the author, power ____________________

(1) has a different interpretation in today's world
(2) has nothing to do with a country's GDP or military strength
(3) has always been bipolar, not unipolar
(4) can come and go


4) Which of the following would weaken the author's hypothesis the most?

(1) If Russia stops focussing on countries which it does not share a border with
(2) If it was found that many countries secretly interfere in elections
(3) If Russia has financial challenges within the next five years
(4) If it was found that Russia had nothing to do with US elections


5) The author mentions Catherine the Great and Peter the Great to establish that

(1) Russia has overreached its power many times
(2) Russia has lost and gained back power multiple times
(3) Russia was greatest during these rulers' times
(4) Russia has been overshadowed multiple times


RC 7 - Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

In the book "The Naked Corporation," Don Tapscott and David Ticoll examine novel
business risks that have popped up with the internet. The democratization of free
information and rise of social media means business practices can be discovered and
scrutinized on a much wider scale...

At a minimum, that means considering customers and employees beyond tomorrow's
profit margin.

As people take to the streets to protest the actions of the new president, C.E.O.s of
corporations are being challenged to take a stand — something many have been
reluctant to do in the face of market pressures to keep one's head down and focus on the
numbers.

But for some businesses, taking a stand is good for the brand. Tech C.E.O.s are speaking
out forcefully against the visa ban because they depend on the best skills and talent, no
matter the nationality. Other tech employees may believe it is morally wrong to turn
away refugees and legal residents — or, at least they are confident that their customers
feel that way. There’s safety in numbers of course, and it’s best when corporations can
articulate why an issue matters to their business bottom line.

Still, cultivating positive brand identity has become undoubtedly important for
consumer-facing companies. Take #DeleteUber. The real aim of the social media boycott
that went viral seemed to be to punish a business — for placing profit over community
and/or for appearing to support President Trump's refugee ban on seven Muslim-
majority countries. The boycott could not reverse President Trump's executive order,
but it did cause Uber’s C.E.O. to drop out of President Trump’s business council.

The power and speed of social media has allowed campaigns to evolve from focusing on
the consequences of a product — like the legendary Nestlé infant formula boycott in the
1970s — to labor-related issues that are within the control of the corporation. From
there, they have spread to include more complex global concerns like child labor and
climate change. Boycotts over an issue like deforestation could require a radical kind of
agency from a company if it had to disrupt its entire supply chain to make real progress.

But some companies see real market advantages in this consumer trend. Levi Strauss
and Starbucks, for example, have gotten out ahead on issues like H.I.V./Aids and water
scarcity to help cultivate positive brand identity. They didn't wait for a protest or
boycott: They took a pre-emptive moral stance.

For mass-market brands, like Pepsi and McDonalds, that road can be more treacherous.
Still, to address consumer demands — often articulated by a sophisticated NGO working
to corral public opinion — companies typically tie their brand to big social issues, like
human rights. These initiatives can require real changes for companies, however,
including a change in how they source their products.

The challenge today for all corporations is clear: Citizens are looking for leadership on
issues of real consequence. These issues are no longer confined to the ballot box. And
consumers are aligning their dollars with their ideals. The answer for businesses may
require new forms of association in which courageous C.E.O.s can stand up and be
counted.

There is a challenge for consumers, too. They must distinguish between the companies
that truly push positive social change and those that just pay lip service to it.



1) According to the passage, the #DeleteUber campaign was successful because

(1) It shows that the public can force changes in consumer companies
(2) It resulted in Uber's CEO dropping out of the US President's business council
(3) It went viral
(4) It showcased the necessity to cultivate positive brand identity


2) According to the author, which of the following is NOT a benefit of taking a
moral stand?

(1) Access to the best talent
(2) Rise of NGOs for human rights
(3) A positive brand image
(4) Long-term benefits for society


3) Which of the following is given as a challenge faced by consumers currently

(1) Associating with President Trump
(2) Lack of access to talent
(3) Social media boycotts
(4) Distinguishing between companies which push for change and those who simply talk
about it


4) The author would agree with all of the following EXCEPT

(1) The best cause to espouse is the one that benefits both the society and the
company's profitability
(2) Companies are still thinking of their benefit when they push for social changes
(3) Access to information is not necessarily good for everyone
(4) Focussing on customers and employees reduces a company's profit margin


5) The author states that “consumers are aligning their dollars with their ideals”
to highlight that

(1) People are only buying products and services from companies that they believe in
(2) More and more people are contributing to their chosen causes
(3) People are choosing high-end brands like Levi Strauss and Starbucks instead of
mass-market brands like Pepsi and McDonalds
(4) People are now contributing to companies instead of politicians


RC 8 - Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Soft, strong, and shimmering — silk was first cultivated in China, perhaps as early as the
mid-third millennium B.C. The art of turning the cocoons of the silkworm moth (Bombyx
mori) was, according to legend, discovered by the wife of the Yellow Emperor, a
mythical forebear of the tribe that later founded China’s first dynasty, the Xia, circa 2070
B.C. … Centuries later, it would be these silken threads that would weave together a vast
trade network, linking the lands of China to Rome.

In the 19th century German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen looked for a term to
describe the trade routes that shuttled silks and other luxury goods between the Far
East and the Mediterranean from the first century B.C. until the Middle Ages. It seemed
appropriate to name it for the item most associated with Eastern opulence, and
Richthofen’s term, “Silk Road,” has stuck ever since.

The Chinese did not make an effort to sell silk outside of their country until
circumstances forced them to do so... Zhang Qian, a young officer of the emperor’s palace
guard, [was on] a diplomatic mission. In the Fergana Valley, north of the Hindu Kush, he
observed horses much larger than those in China. He recognized that these beasts would
be valuable military additions to Chinese forces... Most important of all, he identified a
widespread desire for Chinese silk.

Strictly speaking, the Silk Road was not a single highway but a network of roads that
twisted and turned on the way from east to west. From Chang’an, for example, one
branch went southwest to the mouth of the Ganges in India. Among the luxury products
traveling west were jade, turtle shells, bird feathers, and, of course, silk. Traders also
brought metals — silver, iron, lead, tin, and gold — and foodstuffs — saffron and other
spices, tea, carrots, and pomegranates.

By 102 B.C., the Chinese controlled traffic along the Silk Road as far as the Fergana
Valley. Although goods travelled thousands of miles in both directions, the merchants
themselves probably only journeyed along short sections. When they reached the next
city, they would sell their merchandise to the locals, who would then travel along the
next segment and trade with the merchants there. Each major city on the route had
Chinese customs posts. Westbound traders had to wait several days to pay their exit
duties while soldiers carefully searched their baggage to make sure no one was
smuggling silkworms or cocoons out of the country...

Having reached the Mediterranean, goods were shipped to Rome from ports such as
Tyre and Antioch... Since the moment it left Chang’an, to its unpacking in the aristocratic
surroundings of a Roman villa about a year later, a roll of silk would have passed
through a dazzling array of cultures, languages, and climes. Even though silk production
had spread to the western lands, the Silk Road continued to be a vibrant connection of
cultures and trade. Not only products travelled along the Silk Road, but ideas too:
convulsions in human thought and faith that reshaped the world. Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam would all travel along these paths and touch cultures along the
way, shaping people’s beliefs and philosophies over time.
1) Why did Ferdinand von Richthofen choose the name the Silk Road?

(1) The quest for silk connected a vast trade network, from China to Rome
(2) Silk was seen as a symbol of Eastern luxury
(3) Silk was the first item traded internationally by China
(4) The Chinese used this road to sell silk to India and Europe, especially Rome


2) Which of the following led to international trade by the Chinese?

(1) The Chinese wanted horses to enhance their military
(2) A mutual desire – China wanted horses and India wanted silk
(3) China sold silk, jade, gourmet food and other luxury goods in return for large
Fergana horses
(4) There were merchants in many cities along this route, wanting to buy and sell


3) Which of the following is mentioned to show how the Chinese closely guarded
the secret of silk?

(1) Only the Chinese knew how to take silk from silkworms' cocoons and weave it into
silk cloth
(2) Chinese controlled the route, and allowed the merchants only to travel short
distances, so that the secret would not spread
(3) Chinese soldiers searched all traders' baggage through the route
(4) Nothing is mentioned in the passage


4) What can we conclude from paragraph 6?

(1) Even though the Silk Road was established for trade, it ultimately led to the spread of
cultures, ideas and even religions
(2) Silk was not the only thing that was sold, but it was certainly the one which was
most popular
(3) People in European countries had to wait a log time before they got the silk they
wanted
(4) Chinese silk and ideals reshaped the world


5) How did China begin trading with India?

(1) One route from Chang'an led southwest to the Ganges in India
(2) The Chinese wanted the large horses north of the Hindukush, to enhance their
military power
(3) The Chinese wanted to buy spices, especially saffron, in return for silk
(4) It is not mentioned in the passage

RC 9 - Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

A recent paper from Google’s quantum computing lab announced that the company had
achieved quantum supremacy. Everyone has been talking about it, but what does it all
mean? In 2012, the term “quantum supremacy” was proposed to describe the point
where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, regardless of
whether those tasks are useful. This is a privileged time in the history of our planet,
when information technologies based on principles of quantum physics are ascendant.

The recent Google paper illustrates the point. They used a device with 53 qubits (the
quantum analogues of a classical computer’s bits), and they report that it took just
minutes to perform quantum computations that would take today’s most powerful
supercomputers thousands of years. Assuming it’s true, this is a remarkable
achievement in experimental physics and a testament to the brisk pace of progress in
quantum computing hardware; I offer my hearty congratulations to everyone involved.

The catch, as the Google team acknowledges, is that the problem their machine solved
with astounding speed was carefully chosen just for the purpose of demonstrating the
quantum computer’s superiority. It is not otherwise a problem of much practical
interest. In brief, the quantum computer executed a randomly chosen sequence of
instructions, and then all the qubits were measured to produce an output bit string. This
quantum computation has very little structure, which makes it harder for the classical
computer to keep up, but also means that the answer is not very informative.

However, the demonstration is still significant. By checking that the output of their
quantum computer agrees with the output of a classical supercomputer (in cases where
it doesn’t take thousands of years), the team has verified that they understand their
device and that it performs as it should. Now that we know the hardware is working, we
can begin the search for more useful applications.

Why is it so important to verify the performance of the hardware? It’s because precisely
controlling a quantum computer is notoriously difficult. In a sense, merely looking at a
quantum system unavoidably disturbs it, a manifestation of Heisenberg’s famous
uncertainty principle. So if we want to use such a system to store and reliably process
information, we need to keep that system nearly perfectly isolated from the outside
world. At the same time, though, we want the qubits to interact with one another so we
can process the information; we also need to control the system from the outside and
eventually measure the qubits to learn the results of our computations. It is quite
challenging to build a quantum system that satisfies all of these desiderata, and it has
taken many years of progress in materials, fabrication, design and control to get where
we are now.

The quantum supremacy milestone allegedly achieved by Google is a pivotal step in the
quest for practical quantum computers...

The key question here is “Is controlling large-scale quantum systems merely really,
really hard, or is it ridiculously hard? In the former case we might succeed in building
large-scale quantum computers after a few decades of very hard work. In the latter case
we might not succeed for centuries, if ever.” The recent achievement by the Google team
bolsters our confidence that quantum computing is merely really, really hard. If that’s
true, a plethora of quantum technologies are likely to blossom in the decades ahead.



1) The central idea of this passage is that

(1) Establishing quantum supremacy is a key milestone, as it proves that workable
quantum computers are merely difficult, not impossible
(2) Google has proven quantum supremacy is possible, by using a quantum computer to
come up with a random string
(3) Quantum computers are very difficult to control and use, but establishing quantum
supremacy has solved this issue
(4) Quantum supremacy seems important, but solves impractical problems


2) What does the author mean by “quantum supremacy”?

(1) The importance of quantum computers vs. classical computers
(2) Quantum computers being able to problems which classical computers take a
thousand years to solve
(3) When quantum computers can solve problems that classical computers can’t, or take
too long to solve
(4) The fact that building large-scale quantum computers is really hard, but not
impossible


3) What is the practical impact of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for quantum
computers?

(1) It hinders the building of practical quantum computers
(2) Controlling the hardware of a quantum computer is very difficult
(3) It makes classical computers better than quantum computers
(4) It forces us to develop isolated quantum computers


4) Which of the following would disprove that Google has achieved “quantum
supremacy”?

(1) If it is established that the problem solved by the quantum computer is not useful
(2) If a programmer is able to develop a program to solve the same problem with a
classical computer
(3) If constructing quantum computers is almost impossible
(4) If a new ridiculously powerful supercomputer is developed by a rival tech giant


5) What is the “catch” mentioned in the 3rd paragraph?

(1) The quantum computer succeeded because its computation had very little structure
(2) Since today's classical will take thousands of years to solve this problem, we cannot
verify if Google's quantum computer's solution is correct
(3) Goole's quantum computer might have solved this problem, but the fact remains that
managing the hardware of quantum computers is very difficult
(4) The problem solved by Google's quantum computer has no practical applicability


RC 10 - Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

People, planet, profit: A nifty alliteration to shape a company’s cornerstones for most of
the 21st century. But with 2020 around the corner, a new ‘P’ is ripe to complete the
chain: Personalisation. Fuelled by — what else — social media and the Gen-Z effect,
‘luxury’ is rapidly becoming not about what you have, but who you are, and all that helps
you project that image. Buyers no longer want to showcase vast monogrammed
collections of expensive things, but Instagram spectacular moments, wearing highly
customised products.

“The very essence of luxury is based on the inflation of its symbolic value over the
functional value of its goods and services,” writes Martina Olbertova, CEO of brand and
cultural intelligence consultancy Meaning.Global, in its ‘Luxury Report 2019’. “Luxury
costs more simply because it means more. This is why luxury brands can no longer take
their past prominence for granted and instead need to look for new avenues of
relevance, value and growth in better alignment with the culture.”

“Amidst the jargon, it’s important to note that customers have changed their mind-set
from buying to being,” says a report by British luxury brand alliance Walpole, titled
‘How to attract the luxury consumer in 2020’. It details that consumers want to be
treated as individuals across age groups, and want to feel valued for who they truly are:
Personally, socially and economically.

Across the board, then, brands have become ‘woke’ beyond CSR pitches. Burberry faced
serious flak for choosing to burn stock worth millions; Gucci went fur-free and
supported a march for gun control; Balenciaga has taken on global hunger. While India
is yet to see concerted efforts from home-grown luxury brands, the first step seems to
have been in choosing sustainability. Owning something ‘ethically made’ is the new
luxury in India... Inclusion is another...

At the heart of this transformation is, of course, technology. As luxury retail is moving
beyond brick-and-mortar, brands are hunting for new ways to replicate that personal
touch in a digital format. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are helping them
customise the e-commerce experience for each customer, catered to his or her
individual preferences. With spiffy augmented and virtual reality tools, the buying of a
luxury product or service is turning into an extraordinary experience. Luxe tech in India
[is going] beyond the gimmicks — and it’s helping brands reach even Tier-4 consumers.

It’s a rough time for the economy to be talking about extravagance. But does a slowdown
affect India’s top-tier of buyers? The year 2020 is but a few weeks away. The urgency to
stand out and be counted is louder than ever—and the future, truly, is now.




1) What is the key difference in how luxury is perceived now?

(1) Luxury is about who one is, not what one buys
(2) Luxury has a social aspect as well
(3) Luxury is not about expensive things any more
(4) Luxury is all about personalising one's accessories


2) Which of the following would the author disagree with?

(1) Technology is helping people personalise luxury products
(2) Buyers are choosing ethical brands, not luxury brands
(3) Luxury brands are adapting to their customers' choices
(4) Luxury brands are chasing new customers, and technology is helping


3) According to the author, luxury customers would behave in all the following
ways EXCEPT?

(1) They want to sell under their own brands, not luxury brands
(2) They are looking beyond fashion and luxury, to ideals and ethics
(3) They are not buying extravagantly any more, given the state of the economy
(4) They are being introduced to luxury through technology


4) How is technology supporting luxury companies?

(1) Technology is providing a new, augmented experience
(2) Technology is helping access new customers
(3) Technology is replicating the brick-and-mortar feel with augmented and virtual
reality
(4) All of the above