Banking Exam PCI202544

1. What is the respective ratio between the number of female
students from Karnataka to the number of female students
from Kerala ?

What is the total number of male students from Maharashtra
and Madhya Pradesh together ?

What is the respective ratio between the number of male
students from Assam and the number of male students from
Madhya Pradesh ?

What is the respective ratio between the number of female
students from Karnataka and the number of male students
from the same state ?

The number of female students from Assam are approximately
what percent of the male students from the same state ?

1. How many litres of Yamuna water is consumed for building
projects in Delhi?

What is the ratio of supply of Jehlum water and underground
water together to consumption of Yamuna water for domestic
purposes and Ganga water for Agriculture purposes
together?

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

1. What is the position of F with respect to the position of B ?

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

Nine friends A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K are sitting around a circle facing the centre. A sits second to left of D. K sits third to right of F. Neither K nor F is an immediate neighbour of A or D. G and H are immediate neighbours of each other. E sits third to right of H. B is not an immediate neighbor of F

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table facing the centre not necessarily in the same order. F is fourth to the left of A and second to the right of C. B is second to the left of A, and A is to the immediate right of G. E who is not an immediate neighbour of B is fourth to the left of D.

1. Which of the following is correct?

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table facing the centre not necessarily in the same order. F is fourth to the left of A and second to the right of C. B is second to the left of A, and A is to the immediate right of G. E who is not an immediate neighbour of B is fourth to the left of D.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table facing the centre not necessarily in the same order. F is fourth to the left of A and second to the right of C. B is second to the left of A, and A is to the immediate right of G. E who is not an immediate neighbour of B is fourth to the left of D.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table facing the centre not necessarily in the same order. F is fourth to the left of A and second to the right of C. B is second to the left of A, and A is to the immediate right of G. E who is not an immediate neighbour of B is fourth to the left of D.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are sitting around a circular table facing the centre not necessarily in the same order. F is fourth to the left of A and second to the right of C. B is second to the left of A, and A is to the immediate right of G. E who is not an immediate neighbour of B is fourth to the left of D.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

1. Who has been criticized for the relationship with an oil industry according to the passage?

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

i. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable caretaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11 m of the firm’s
diesel vehicles had not been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.
ii. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero emissions must be reached around the middle of the century.
iii. When totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

Enough countries ratified the deal on global warming reached in Paris in December 2015—aiming to keep the increase on preindustrial temperatures to “well below” 2°C —for it formally to come into effect in November 2016. The world’s governments are starting to act on their pollution-cutting pledges. But two big questions loom large in 2017. One is the fate of the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump. The president-elected has claimed that global warming is a hoax intended to frustrate American businesses. He will seek to thwart the Clean Power Plan, which sets national standards to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, and withdraw from the Paris deal itself. However, none of his options is easy. Now that the agreement has entered into force, the country is bound to it for four years. A Trump administration could stymie related environmental efforts, but that would alienate China, among others. The plummeting price of solar and wind power may anyway test Mr Trump’s love of coal. And powerful states, such as California, will lead green endeavours where federal ones fall short.

The second question is whether businesses get serious about curbing their emissions. To stand a chance of limiting the world to warming of less than 2°C, net zero  missions must be reached around the middle of the century. Yet, when totted up, national pledges to curb pollution under the Paris deal will only keep warming to around 3°C. Firms must help bridge the gap. 

In many cases they can make money from going greener. Over the decade to 2015 Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer, saved as much as $1 billion annually by  hanging the routes of its American vehicle fleet, which doubled its efficiency. And their reputations are at risk. In recent years Lego, a maker of toy bricks, has been lambasted for its relationship with the oil industry, and snack giants such as Nestle have come under attack for the deforestation caused by palm-oil plantations. But how serious will businesses’ efforts be? In Mr Trump’s America, the pressure may be off. And in the wider corporate world “sustainability” has too often been jargon for activities designed to fob off environmentalists.

Confusion over measurement has not helped: firms lack an agreed means of reporting their impact on the planet. Many ways exist to quantify water use, chemical use and emissions from buildings, products and supply chains. Comparing companies using differing standards is tricky enough. Doing so when firms hide key information can be a joke. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index deemed Volkswagen the world’s most sustainable carmaker in 2015; weeks later, news broke that 11m of the firm’s diesel vehicles had been fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

In 2017 there should at least be fewer excuses. A taskforce on carbon disclosure will deliver recommendations to the G20 and the Financial Stability Board, a global regulators’ forum. The plan is to create a voluntary framework that will allow companies to report their exposure to climate risks consistently. Once they do so the market can go green more efficiently, armed with more information. A new carbon-disclosure framework for firms could, therefore, spur progress on national pledges to curb emissions. Other trends could help cut waste. Talk of the “circular economy”, predicated on recycling and reusing products, is in vogue. Leasing models, for everything from cars to light bulbs, can save resources. 

The Paris Agreement includes mechanisms to crank up national pledges. Fresh talks will be held in 2018 to take stock of progress; countries will then decide on new goals for themselves in 2020. Even if America has fallen back by then, dreadful air pollution in India and China means their governments cannot ignore emissions. Tree-hugging Europeans will demand further action. So, despite the temptation, in America at least, to shelter behind the new climate-change denier-in-chief in the White House, the best long-term strategy firms can pursue is one that lowers their own impact on the planet.

Economic growth is what every economy.....A...... to achieve for the good of everyone as a whole. Developing, producing more, increased wages, higher levels of education, better and better technologies is what we.....B....... for. But doing all that, does that mean that we are living a better life? Or is it just the ideal of doing better, not really the result that keeps us following the dream of a perfect world. The ......C....... of economic growth are full of positives points such as boost in infrastructures, urban development, higher education, globalisation, creates.......D......., higher wages for workers, better living standards for the population, and the list can go on and on. But aren’t there any externalities to all of this? There are some of the negative externalities of growing above what the economy can take, reaching the limits where growing is counter-.........E......... Some of those disadvantages of growth are outlined in this report, such as health problems arising, environmental......F........, education issues as well, and how standard of living doesn’t always mean better is getting more.

1. Which of the following words should fill in the blank (A) to make a contextually correct and meaningful sentence?

Economic growth is what every economy.....A...... to achieve for the good of everyone as a whole. Developing, producing more, increased wages, higher levels of education, better and better technologies is what we.....B....... for. But doing all that, does that mean that we are living a better life? Or is it just the ideal of doing better, not really the result that keeps us following the dream of a perfect world. The ......C....... of economic growth are full of positives points such as boost in infrastructures, urban development, higher education, globalisation, creates.......D......., higher wages for workers, better living standards for the population, and the list can go on and on. But aren’t there any externalities to all of this? There are some of the negative externalities of growing above what the economy can take, reaching the limits where growing is counter-.........E......... Some of those disadvantages of growth are outlined in this report, such as health problems arising, environmental......F........, education issues as well, and how standard of living doesn’t always mean better is getting more.

Which of the following words should fill in the blank (B) to make a contextually correct and meaningful sentence?

Economic growth is what every economy.....A...... to achieve for the good of everyone as a whole. Developing, producing more, increased wages, higher levels of education, better and better technologies is what we.....B....... for. But doing all that, does that mean that we are living a better life? Or is it just the ideal of doing better, not really the result that keeps us following the dream of a perfect world. The ......C....... of economic growth are full of positives points such as boost in infrastructures, urban development, higher education, globalisation, creates.......D......., higher wages for workers, better living standards for the population, and the list can go on and on. But aren’t there any externalities to all of this? There are some of the negative externalities of growing above what the economy can take, reaching the limits where growing is counter-.........E......... Some of those disadvantages of growth are outlined in this report, such as health problems arising, environmental......F........, education issues as well, and how standard of living doesn’t always mean better is getting more.

Which of the following words should fill in the blank (C) to make a contextually correct and meaningful sentence?

Economic growth is what every economy.....A...... to achieve for the good of everyone as a whole. Developing, producing more, increased wages, higher levels of education, better and better technologies is what we.....B....... for. But doing all that, does that mean that we are living a better life? Or is it just the ideal of doing better, not really the result that keeps us following the dream of a perfect world. The ......C....... of economic growth are full of positives points such as boost in infrastructures, urban development, higher education, globalisation, creates.......D......., higher wages for workers, better living standards for the population, and the list can go on and on. But aren’t there any externalities to all of this? There are some of the negative externalities of growing above what the economy can take, reaching the limits where growing is counter-.........E......... Some of those disadvantages of growth are outlined in this report, such as health problems arising, environmental......F........, education issues as well, and how standard of living doesn’t always mean better is getting more.

Which of the following words should fill in the blank (D) to make a contextually correct and meaningful sentence?

Economic growth is what every economy.....A...... to achieve for the good of everyone as a whole. Developing, producing more, increased wages, higher levels of education, better and better technologies is what we.....B....... for. But doing all that, does that mean that we are living a better life? Or is it just the ideal of doing better, not really the result that keeps us following the dream of a perfect world. The ......C....... of economic growth are full of positives points such as boost in infrastructures, urban development, higher education, globalisation, creates.......D......., higher wages for workers, better living standards for the population, and the list can go on and on. But aren’t there any externalities to all of this? There are some of the negative externalities of growing above what the economy can take, reaching the limits where growing is counter-.........E......... Some of those disadvantages of growth are outlined in this report, such as health problems arising, environmental......F........, education issues as well, and how standard of living doesn’t always mean better is getting more.

Which of the following words should fill in the blank (E) to make a contextually correct and meaningful sentence?

Economic growth is what every economy.....A...... to achieve for the good of everyone as a whole. Developing, producing more, increased wages, higher levels of education, better and better technologies is what we.....B....... for. But doing all that, does that mean that we are living a better life? Or is it just the ideal of doing better, not really the result that keeps us following the dream of a perfect world. The ......C....... of economic growth are full of positives points such as boost in infrastructures, urban development, higher education, globalisation, creates.......D......., higher wages for workers, better living standards for the population, and the list can go on and on. But aren’t there any externalities to all of this? There are some of the negative externalities of growing above what the economy can take, reaching the limits where growing is counter-.........E......... Some of those disadvantages of growth are outlined in this report, such as health problems arising, environmental......F........, education issues as well, and how standard of living doesn’t always mean better is getting more.

Which of the following words should fill in the blank (F) to make a contextually correct and meaningful sentence?

If sentence (C) “The first note was introduced on November 30, 1917, with the photo of King George V.” is the first sentence, what is the order of other sentences after rearrangement?

(A) Even as it has gone through these travails, the Re. 1 note has retained many of its unique distinctions, including being called a ‘coin’ in legal speak.

(B) The last hundred years — the first note was introduced on November 30, 1917, with the photo of King George V —have been all but tumultuous for this creation.

(C) The first note was introduced on November 30, 1917, with the photo of King George V.

(D) Its genesis lies in the World War I where the inability to mint coins forced the then colonial authorities to shift to printing Re. 1 notes in 1917.

(E) The Reserve Bank website says its issuance was discontinued first in 1926 on “cost benefit considerations”.

(F) It got reintroduced in 1940, only to be discontinued in 1994 again.