Set-23 Reading Comprehension For SBI PO and SBI Clerk 2019 | Must Go Through These Questions

Dear Aspirants,
We are providing the most important Reading Comprehension for SBI PO 2019, SBI Clerk 2019 and all other competitive bank and insurance exams. These questions have very high chances to be asked in SBI PO 2019, SBI Clerk 2019.
Get the Best Test Series for SBI PO 2019 at the most affordable price (Based on Real Exam Pattern) – Click Here
Download the Best GK Gaming App for Current Affairs and GK (Bank+SSC)– Click here (App No 1)  (App No 2)

Directions(1-5): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

No one knows quite how much fruit and vegetable produce never reaches the grocery checkout till. A fifth perhaps—or maybe twice that—is judged to be beneath commercial standards. So it is put to use as animal-feed or compost, or simply thrown away in a landfill. This infuriates those appalled at waste. Their outrage, however, has not been enough to create for unwanted fruit and vegetable the kind of sophisticated market that exists for products with more obvious uses, such as securities, currencies, metals, oil and unsullied agriculture. That is starting to change. At least two companies, Imperfect produce (whose logo is a misshapen potato that looks like a heart) and Hungry Harvest (whose slogan is “Rescued Produce. Delivered”), now provide boxes of subpar stuff directly to retail customers, one concentrating on the west coast of America, the other on the east. Another company, Full Harvest, has the wholesale market in its sights, linking farms to producers of food and beverages. In December, a new iPhone app, goMkt, launched. It currently alerts retail buyers to flash sales of surplus food by local shops and restaurants. That is intended to be the first step in a more sophisticated system designed to link up businesses via matching algorithms. None of these companies is very big at the moment. Others are reportedly in their infancies. Many more will probably follow the emergence of clever web-based exchanges. All face formidable obstacles.

Conventional commodity exchanges favour bulk trading in undifferentiated products. Food shops mostly prefer the best quality fruit and vegetables, or slightly lower-quality goods sold for a bit less. After all, stocking shelves with unattractive items is rarely a good retail strategy. Even the most cost-conscious shopper might blanch at a shop full of rows of degraded food, and operating costs would be high because of the need to monitor the produce, which can lose value by the hour. But as with much that is ugly, there is value in the products, particularly when the aesthetic flaws are the only ones. Berries can be too small, cucumbers crooked, bananas fat—and all can be bruised or blemished—without harming their taste or health benefits. A truly ugly tomato can still be perfect for a juice or a sauce. The emerging companies have had to overcome four operational challenges, observes Elliot Rabinovich, a professor at Arizona State University who, with his colleague, Tim Richards, has received a grant from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to study how to develop such businesses. The first is to systematise distinctions in quality that can allow useful pricing. The second is efficient distribution, since the deteriorating products must reach customers quickly and, as cost is an important aspect of their appeal, cheaply.

Third, liability must be sorted out. Products may arrive too old to be usable and even in some cases spoiled and dangerous. A routine mismatch in payment terms between suppliers and the ultimate users, Mr Rabinovich notes, can leave the intermediary responsible, at least on paper, for inventory, even if it never touches the products. That can have the odd consequence of inadvertently making the intermediary a food-seller, falling under the regulatory umbrella of the USDA. Finally, there is profitability. Small growers have often found substandard produce too costly to handle. Some worry that even if they earn a bit on these kinds of produce, that may eat into the sales of their pretty stuff. Mr Rabinovich says such concerns are likely to be tackled as the market gains scale, enabling more variety (pleasing users) and more demand (pleasing providers). Slowly, ideas on better ways to run one of the world’s oldest markets, the trade in food, are bearing fruit.

1. What is the difference between fruit or vegetable market and other market?

  1. There is no exact estimate of production of fruit and vegetable.
  2. Fruit and vegetable market is not sophisticated as other markets.
  3. Price difference between fruit and vegetable market and other commodities is very high.

2. What is true about Hungry Harvest, Imperfect produce and goMkt?

  1. These are the companies which work on matching algorithms.
  2. These are very small companies.
  3. These company is bringing revolution in the market.

3. What author said about the degraded food in the passage?

  1. Operating costs of keeping degraded food in shelves is high.
  2. Keeping degraded food in shelves is not a good retail strategy.
  3. Degraded food cannot be consumed.

4. What is the challenges observed by Elliot Rabinovich for fruit and vegetable businesses?

  1. He suggests about the operational challenges of such businesses.
  2. He suggests about the efficient distribution of products.
  3. He suggests about the challenge of quality distinction.

5. What is true regarding the passage?

  1. Small growers have found that substandard product are too costly to handle.
  2. Sales of the good stuff will be affected by substandard products.
  3. Selling of substandard product increase the profit of the firm.

Direction (6-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

Every Tuesday, senior members of the administration gather in the White House to discuss trade. They are divided between hawks, who argue that America needs to be tougher in its defence against what they see as economic warfare waged by China, and doves, who worry about the costs of conflict. So far, against all expectations when President Donald Trump entered the White House, the doves have prevailed. The first of a series of legal deadlines could soon unleash the hawks. Last April Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, initiated a probe into whether steel imports were a threat to America’s national security. His department pointed to a “dramatic” increase in steel imports over the previous year and to the idling of nearly 30% of America’s steel-production capacity, as imports feed a quarter of its consumption. If the report, due by January 15th, finds imports are a threat, Mr Trump, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, will have 90 days to respond.

The report’s conclusion is not in much doubt. The government is likely to argue that steel is important for the defence industry. It is used to make navy ships and submarines; “exotic” high-strength, low-weight alloys are used for fighter jets. The armed forces use only a tiny fraction of domestic steel output, but some producers claim that to make the requisite high-end specialised steel, they rely on selling lower-quality stuff in volume to cover their fixed costs. The government can also consider the importance of steel to America’s “critical infrastructure”, including chemical production, communications and dams. In fact, hefty chunk of America’s steel imports come from long-standing allies, like Canada and the EU, rather than China, the hawks’ real target. And an investigation into iron ore and semi-finished steel in 2001 found that on a broad definition, an upper limit for the fraction of domestic production required by critical industries was only 31%. It is unlikely to be very much higher now. But the law is so vague that the government can decide as it wants. The national-security case may be specious. But the Trump administration is right that the world has too much steelmaking capacity. The industry has long been prone to bloating, because of state support that blunts price signals. This time, China is the main culprit. Its production bulged from 15% of the global total by volume in 2000 to 50% in 2016. When its domestic demand declined, exports rather than plant closures took the strain, and mills elsewhere were left idle. Excluding China, global capacity use fell from 86% in 2004 to 69% in 2016. Even so, it is hard to blame China for all the world’s steel woes. A document seen by The Economist, produced in August by Mr Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, suggested that the surge of steel imports in the first half of 2017 was consistent with changing domestic demand, not dumping by foreigners (nor did it seem, as some suggested later, to have been fed by importers stockpiling steel in anticipation of tariffs)

6. What can be true regarding the passage?

  1. Senior member of administration in White House argue that economic warfare waged by China.
  2. Senior member of administration thinks that America need to be tougher in defence against China’s economic warfare.
  3. Senior member of administration directed Donald Trump for the economic warfare.

7. Why Wilbur Ross thinks that steel imports can be a threat to America’s national security?

  1. Because there were dramatic increase in steel import in previous year.
  2. Because steel is mostly used in defence industry.
  3. Because China already raised an economic warfare.

8. According to the passage, which sentence cannot be true in the given sentences?

  1. Trump is going to respond on the report within 90 days.
  2. Report is most likely going to conclude that import is threat to America.
  3. Wilbur Ross initiated a probe to find whether steel imports are threat or not.

9. If Trump government have to respond for heavy imports so what may be their points according to the passage?

  1. Steel are used to manufacture submarines and navy ships.
  2. Steel which is produced in America is not of such good quality that it can be used in defence equipments.
  3. Imports of steel is good for their trade policy.

10. What can be the suitable title for the passage?

 

 

Check the answer below

 

 

 

 

Directions(1-5): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

No one knows quite how much fruit and vegetable produce never reaches the grocery checkout till. A fifth perhaps—or maybe twice that—is judged to be beneath commercial standards. So it is put to use as animal-feed or compost, or simply thrown away in a landfill. This infuriates those appalled at waste. Their outrage, however, has not been enough to create for unwanted fruit and vegetable the kind of sophisticated market that exists for products with more obvious uses, such as securities, currencies, metals, oil and unsullied agriculture. That is starting to change. At least two companies, Imperfect produce (whose logo is a misshapen potato that looks like a heart) and Hungry Harvest (whose slogan is “Rescued Produce. Delivered”), now provide boxes of subpar stuff directly to retail customers, one concentrating on the west coast of America, the other on the east. Another company, Full Harvest, has the wholesale market in its sights, linking farms to producers of food and beverages. In December, a new iPhone app, goMkt, launched. It currently alerts retail buyers to flash sales of surplus food by local shops and restaurants. That is intended to be the first step in a more sophisticated system designed to link up businesses via matching algorithms. None of these companies is very big at the moment. Others are reportedly in their infancies. Many more will probably follow the emergence of clever web-based exchanges. All face formidable obstacles.

Conventional commodity exchanges favour bulk trading in undifferentiated products. Food shops mostly prefer the best quality fruit and vegetables, or slightly lower-quality goods sold for a bit less. After all, stocking shelves with unattractive items is rarely a good retail strategy. Even the most cost-conscious shopper might blanch at a shop full of rows of degraded food, and operating costs would be high because of the need to monitor the produce, which can lose value by the hour. But as with much that is ugly, there is value in the products, particularly when the aesthetic flaws are the only ones. Berries can be too small, cucumbers crooked, bananas fat—and all can be bruised or blemished—without harming their taste or health benefits. A truly ugly tomato can still be perfect for a juice or a sauce. The emerging companies have had to overcome four operational challenges, observes Elliot Rabinovich, a professor at Arizona State University who, with his colleague, Tim Richards, has received a grant from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to study how to develop such businesses. The first is to systematise distinctions in quality that can allow useful pricing. The second is efficient distribution, since the deteriorating products must reach customers quickly and, as cost is an important aspect of their appeal, cheaply.

Third, liability must be sorted out. Products may arrive too old to be usable and even in some cases spoiled and dangerous. A routine mismatch in payment terms between suppliers and the ultimate users, Mr Rabinovich notes, can leave the intermediary responsible, at least on paper, for inventory, even if it never touches the products. That can have the odd consequence of inadvertently making the intermediary a food-seller, falling under the regulatory umbrella of the USDA. Finally, there is profitability. Small growers have often found substandard produce too costly to handle. Some worry that even if they earn a bit on these kinds of produce, that may eat into the sales of their pretty stuff. Mr Rabinovich says such concerns are likely to be tackled as the market gains scale, enabling more variety (pleasing users) and more demand (pleasing providers). Slowly, ideas on better ways to run one of the world’s oldest markets, the trade in food, are bearing fruit.

1. Question

What is the difference between fruit or vegetable market and other market?

  1. There is no exact estimate of production of fruit and vegetable.
  2. Fruit and vegetable market is not sophisticated as other markets.
  3. Price difference between fruit and vegetable market and other commodities is very high.
Ans: 4
There is no mention in the price difference, so 1 & 2 are the main difference.
2. Question

What is true about Hungry Harvest, Imperfect produce and goMkt?

  1. These are the companies which work on matching algorithms.
  2. These are very small companies.
  3. These company is bringing revolution in the market.
Ans: 4
1 and 2 are true about these companies, and 3 is not true because there is no mention about the revolution.
3. Question

What author said about the degraded food in the passage?

  1. Operating costs of keeping degraded food in shelves is high.
  2. Keeping degraded food in shelves is not a good retail strategy.
  3. Degraded food cannot be consumed.
Ans: 4
There is no mention about food consumption.
4. Question

What is the challenges observed by Elliot Rabinovich for fruit and vegetable businesses?

  1. He suggests about the operational challenges of such businesses.
  2. He suggests about the efficient distribution of products.
  3. He suggests about the challenge of quality distinction.
Ans: 5
All of the above are the challenge observed by Elliot Rabinovich.
5. Question

What is true regarding the passage?

  1. Small growers have found that substandard product are too costly to handle.
  2. Sales of the good stuff will be affected by substandard products.
  3. Selling of substandard product increase the profit of the firm.
Ans: 4
3 is not true from the above sentence. 1 and 2 are true.

Direction (6-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

Every Tuesday, senior members of the administration gather in the White House to discuss trade. They are divided between hawks, who argue that America needs to be tougher in its defence against what they see as economic warfare waged by China, and doves, who worry about the costs of conflict. So far, against all expectations when President Donald Trump entered the White House, the doves have prevailed. The first of a series of legal deadlines could soon unleash the hawks. Last April Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, initiated a probe into whether steel imports were a threat to America’s national security. His department pointed to a “dramatic” increase in steel imports over the previous year and to the idling of nearly 30% of America’s steel-production capacity, as imports feed a quarter of its consumption. If the report, due by January 15th, finds imports are a threat, Mr Trump, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, will have 90 days to respond.

The report’s conclusion is not in much doubt. The government is likely to argue that steel is important for the defence industry. It is used to make navy ships and submarines; “exotic” high-strength, low-weight alloys are used for fighter jets. The armed forces use only a tiny fraction of domestic steel output, but some producers claim that to make the requisite high-end specialised steel, they rely on selling lower-quality stuff in volume to cover their fixed costs. The government can also consider the importance of steel to America’s “critical infrastructure”, including chemical production, communications and dams. In fact, hefty chunk of America’s steel imports come from long-standing allies, like Canada and the EU, rather than China, the hawks’ real target. And an investigation into iron ore and semi-finished steel in 2001 found that on a broad definition, an upper limit for the fraction of domestic production required by critical industries was only 31%. It is unlikely to be very much higher now. But the law is so vague that the government can decide as it wants. The national-security case may be specious. But the Trump administration is right that the world has too much steelmaking capacity. The industry has long been prone to bloating, because of state support that blunts price signals. This time, China is the main culprit. Its production bulged from 15% of the global total by volume in 2000 to 50% in 2016. When its domestic demand declined, exports rather than plant closures took the strain, and mills elsewhere were left idle. Excluding China, global capacity use fell from 86% in 2004 to 69% in 2016. Even so, it is hard to blame China for all the world’s steel woes. A document seen by The Economist, produced in August by Mr Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, suggested that the surge of steel imports in the first half of 2017 was consistent with changing domestic demand, not dumping by foreigners (nor did it seem, as some suggested later, to have been fed by importers stockpiling steel in anticipation of tariffs)

6. Question

What can be true regarding the passage?

  1. Senior member of administration in White House argue that economic warfare waged by China.
  2. Senior member of administration thinks that America need to be tougher in defence against China’s economic warfare.
  3. Senior member of administration directed Donald Trump for the economic warfare.
Ans: 4
there is not any direction by administration as given in passage.
7. Question

Why Wilbur Ross thinks that steel imports can be a threat to America’s national security?

  1. Because there were dramatic increase in steel import in previous year.
  2. Because steel is mostly used in defence industry.
  3. Because China already raised an economic warfare.
Ans: 1
Due to dramatic increase in steel import , it may be threat to national security of America.
8. Question

According to the passage, which sentence cannot be true in the given sentences?

  1. Trump is going to respond on the report within 90 days.
  2. Report is most likely going to conclude that import is threat to America.
  3. Wilbur Ross initiated a probe to find whether steel imports are threat or not.
Ans: 1
According to passage there is time for the report so obviously Mr. Trump will respond after the report if needed.
9. Question

If Trump government have to respond for heavy imports so what may be their points according to the passage?

  1. Steel are used to manufacture submarines and navy ships.
  2. Steel which is produced in America is not of such good quality that it can be used in defence equipments.
  3. Imports of steel is good for their trade policy.
Ans: 4
3 doesn’t seem a valid point for Trump to defend.
10. Question

What can be the suitable title for the passage?

Ans: 4
In whole passage there is discussion that whether steel import is threat or not so this is the most suitable title of the passage.