DIRECTIONS: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. \n\nThe idea that every individual should have access to a minimum guaranteed basic income is not new. Thomas Paine sought an equal inheritance for everyone, \u201ca national fund\u201d which would pay every adult a sum of \u201cfifteen pounds sterling as compensation\u201d for the introduction of the system of landed property. Over the last century, with the Great Depression, welfare policy in the U.S. was transformed with minimum wage legislation, while Keynesianism meant that the government would attempt to stimulate the economy during downturns by directly financing public employment and public works. Long-term support was offered to the aged, the disabled and single mothers while unemployment insurance sought to support the temporarily unemployed. The 1960s brought about the war on poverty, waged through federally funded social service and healthcare programmes. Milton Friedman sought a negative income tax, eliminating the need for a minimum wage and potentially the \u201cwelfare trap\u201d, while bureaucracy could be curtailed. Richard Nixon supported and yet failed to push through a \u201cFamily Assistance Plan\u201d while George McGovern\u2019s 1972 campaign sought a $1,000 \u201cdemogrant\u201d for all citizens. This decadal struggle against poverty in the West cut the number of those in poverty in the U.S. to 26 million from 36 million in 12 years. Education and health care were improved, but the employability and the income of the poor remained stranded. With the rise of neo-liberalism, opinion shifted. Existing welfare systems had grown too cumbersome, without eliminating poverty.\n\nNow, however, the idea of an unconditional annual income is gathering momentum. Y Combinator, of Silicon Valley fame, is testing out a new business model: handing out money, without any strings, in an unnamed U.S. community in an attempt to replace safety net welfare policies that often fail to help those with the greatest need. Finland is considering a plan to give 100,000 citizens $1,000 a month, while four cities in Netherlands are starting trial programmes. Switzerland may have rejected, in a referendum, the idea of giving citizens about $2,500 a month, but the Canadian province of Ontario is planning a trial run. Progressives hail it as an escape route for workaholics, from oppressive jobs and situations, giving individuals greater time to build relationships and pursue education or artistic endeavours. Conservatives applaud its potential to shrink bureaucracy. As job concerns about automation grow, the basic income stands out as a panacea.\n\nEven India has seen its share of basic income experiments. A pilot in eight villages in Madhya Pradesh provided over 6,000 individuals a monthly payment (Rs.100 for a child, Rs.200 for an adult; later raised to Rs.150 and Rs.300, respectively). The money was initially paid out as cash, while transitioning to bank accounts three months later. The transfer was unconditional, save the prevention of substitution of food subsidies for cash grants. The results were intriguing. Most villagers used the money on household improvements while taking precautions against malaria \u2014 24.3 per cent of the households changed their main source of energy for cooking or lighting; 16 per cent had made changes to their toilet. There was a seeming shift towards markets, instead of ration shops, given better financial liquidity, leading to improved nutrition, particularly among SC and ST households, and better school attendance and performance. There was an increase in small-scale investments (better seeds, sewing machines, equipment repairs etc). Bonded labour decreased, along with casual wage labour, while self-employed farming and business activity increased. Financial inclusion was rapid \u2013 within four months of the pilot, 95.6 per cent of the individuals had bank accounts. Within a year, 73 per cent of the households reported a reduction in their debt. There was no evidence of any increase in spending on alcohol.\n\nBefore moving ahead, we would need more data to prove its applicability in the Indian context. There have only been eight large-scale pilot programmes testing the impact of a universal basic income on human well-being. Social context too matters \u2014 what might have worked in Manitoba or Kenya might not necessarily be applicable to India. We need a greater depth of pilot studies, focussed on ensuring universal access and covering minimum living expenses. With more pilots planned in Oakland, Netherlands, Germany and India, insights developed can be used to modify welfare policy.\n\nQuestion:\n\nWhich of the following was false regarding Madhya Pradesh pilot programme?\n\nOptions:\n\na)\tIt provided over 6,000 individuals a monthly payment\n\nb)\tThe money was initially paid out as cash, while transitioning to bank accounts three months later\n\nc)\tThe transfer was unconditional, save the prevention of substitution of food subsidies for cash grants\n\nd)\tMost villagers used the money on household improvements while taking precautions against malaria \u2014 24.5 per cent of the households changed their main source of energy for cooking or lighting\n\ne)\t16 per cent had made changes to their toilet