CLEAR
Toprankers-Info

+91 7676564400

Mobile App

Get it on Google Play
Discussions
Tags:

Articles

Discussions
Submit Discussion
pK

· started a discussion

· 1 Months ago

Opposite is asked (Question: 113687.3 )

Opposite is asked

Question:

DIRECTIONS: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given. Certain words have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.


Today, emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing power, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third. In the late 1990s, 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is called “catch-up growth”. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical: the gap closed at just 1.5% a year. Some of this was due to slower growth in America; most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs). These economies have grown in different ways and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways, some wrenching.


Commodity prices particularly soared and the cost of manufacture and labor sank. A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labor in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in rich ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the groundwork for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped. The nature of their growth is in the process of changing, too and its new mode will have fewer direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of BRICs in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger, and their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as once it did.


After the 1990s there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’ China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America, booming and confident, was not troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by off-shoring jobs to India. And the technology etc. necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked globalization’s “second unbundling” (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast-growing working-age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labor became accessible. Advanced economies added about 160m non-farm jobs between 1980 and 2010. In 2007 China’s economy expanded by an eye-popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1 % growth, Russia 8.5% and Brazil 6.1 %. The IMF now reckons there will be slowdown in growth. China will grow by just 7.8% in 2013, India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%.


Other countries have impressive growth potential. The “Next 11” (N11) includes Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11 cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies are smaller. The N11 has a population of just over 1.3 billion less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the N11 is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day. The third reason that the performance of the BRICs cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be twice as big in real terms as it was in 1992, according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build on a remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether the new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation or stumble, fall and, in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.

Choose the word which is OPPOSITE in meaning to the word 'tumbled' as used in the passage?

Options:
A) sank
B) soared
C) fell
D) decreased
E) deteriorated
Solution:
Ans: (b) soared

Tumble (verb) means fall suddenly, clumsily, or headlong.

  1. Eg: "she pitched forward, tumbling down the remaining stairs"

-logo
We at aim to provide most comprehensive content & test for practice which is carefully divided into various chapters and topics to help you focus on your weak areas.Our Practice mock test gives you unmatched analytics to help you realize your strong areas,time management and improvement areas.Our Short & Crisp notes on each topic will help you to quickly revise the topic along with the tips & tricks of the exams.
More About
-Info
-Info

Mobile App

Get it on Google Play
About Us Campus Ambassador Careers Contact Us Refund Policy

All Rights Reserved Top Rankers

User Policy
Disclaimer
Terms & Conditions