Q.14185·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberalisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be virtually eliminated and the prices of the products may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms. Examine the following statements : 1. None but students are members of the club. 2. Some members of the club are married persons. 3. All married persons are invited for dance. Which one of the following conclusions can be drawn from the above statements ?View question
Q.14186·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberalisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be virtually eliminated and the prices of the products may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms. Only six roads A, B, C, P, Q and R connect a military camp to the rest of the country. Only one out of A, P and R is open at any one time. If B is closed, so is Q. Only one of A and B is open during storms. P is closed during floods. In this context, which one of the following statements is correct ?View question
Q.14187·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberalisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be virtually eliminated and the prices of the products may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms. Examine the following statements : 1. I watch TV only if I am bored. 2. I am never bored when I have my brother's company. 3. Whenever I go to the theatre I take my brother along. Which one of the following conclusions is valid in the context of the above statements ?View question
Q.14188·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberalisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be virtually eliminated and the prices of the products may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms. What is the inference from this passage? View question
Q.14189·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberalisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be virtually eliminated and the prices of the products may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms. According to the passage, how does a foreign investor dominate the relevant domestic market? 1. Multinational companies get accustomed to domestic laws. 2. Foreign companies establish joint ventures with domestic companies. 3. Affiliates in a particular market/sector lose their independence as their parent companies overseas merge. 4. Foreign companies lower the cost of their products as compared to that of products of domestic companies. Which of the statements given above are correct?View question
Q.14190·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberalisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be virtually eliminated and the prices of the products may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms. With reference to the passage, consider the following statements: 1. It is desirable that the impact of Foreign Direct Investment should be pro-competitive. 2. The entry of foreign investors invariably leads to the inflated prices in domestic markets. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?View question
Q.14191·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyWith the advent of genetic engineering, the gene pool of wild species is seen not as a repository of diversity that serves the evolutionary process, but as a crop improvement toolkit. The new understanding is that genes from any organism, including human genes, can be inserted into other organisms through genetic engineering. A single gene or a set of genes may be transferred to crops to increase their productivity, nutrition value, tolerance to drought or resistance to insects and pests. With the growth of biotechnology industry and the use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to own and protect biological resources and knowledge, living organisms, including animals and plants, and their genes have become commodities. Patents on life and life processes are being granted on the assumption that genetic engineering produces new organisms which do not exist in nature and are therefore patentable. As a result, all living organisms and biological products are considered to be man-made and hence patentable. With patenting, farmers lose their freedom to use seeds from their crops to plant the next season. They become dependent on corporations that own the patents for obtaining seeds and are prevented from using their traditional knowledge. Biopiracy refers to the use of intellectual property systems to legitimize the exclusive ownership and control over biological resources and knowledge, which belong collectively to a community. The implication of genetic engineering is thus not only that seeds can be genetically modified, but that they can also be patented and owned as intellectual property. This transformation of seeds from being a common resource to a corporate monopoly is a threat to biodiversity as well as to the freedom of farmers. What does the author imply by "seeds from being a common resource to a corporate monopoly"?View question
Q.14192·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyGuest lectures on five subjects viz, Economics, History, Statistics, English and Mathematics have to be arranged in a week from Monday to Friday. Only one lecture can be arranged on each day. Economics cannot be scheduled on Tuesday. Guest faculty for History is available only on Tuesday. Mathematics lecture has to be scheduled immediately after the day of Economics lecture. English lecture has to be scheduled immediately before the day of Economics lecture. Which lecture is the last one in the week?View question
Q.14193·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyWith the advent of genetic engineering, the gene pool of wild species is seen not as a repository of diversity that serves the evolutionary process, but as a crop improvement toolkit. The new understanding is that genes from any organism, including human genes, can be inserted into other organisms through genetic engineering. A single gene or a set of genes may be transferred to crops to increase their productivity, nutrition value, tolerance to drought or resistance to insects and pests. With the growth of biotechnology industry and the use of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to own and protect biological resources and knowledge, living organisms, including animals and plants, and their genes have become commodities. Patents on life and life processes are being granted on the assumption that genetic engineering produces new organisms which do not exist in nature and are therefore patentable. As a result, all living organisms and biological products are considered to be man-made and hence patentable. With patenting, farmers lose their freedom to use seeds from their crops to plant the next season. They become dependent on corporations that own the patents for obtaining seeds and are prevented from using their traditional knowledge. Biopiracy refers to the use of intellectual property systems to legitimize the exclusive ownership and control over biological resources and knowledge, which belong collectively to a community. The implication of genetic engineering is thus not only that seeds can be genetically modified, but that they can also be patented and owned as intellectual property. This transformation of seeds from being a common resource to a corporate monopoly is a threat to biodiversity as well as to the freedom of farmers. What is the implication of genetic engineering for farmers?View question
Q.14194·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyEducation, without a doubt, has an important functional, instrumental and utilitarian dimension. This is revealed when one asks questions such as 'what is the purpose of education?'. The answers, too often, are 'to acquire qualifications for employment/upward mobility', 'wider/higher (in terms of income) opportunities', and 'to meet the needs for trained human power in diverse fields for national development'. But in its deepest sense education is not instrumentalist. That is to say, it is not to be justified outside of itself because it leads to the acquisition of formal skills or of certain desired psychological – social attributes. It must be respected in itself. Education is thus not a commodity to be acquired or possessed and then used, but a process of inestimable importance to individuals and society, although it can and does have enormous use-value. Education then, is a process of expansion and conversion, not in the sense of converting or turning students into doctors or engineers, but the widening and turning out of the mind — the creation, sustenance and development of self-critical awareness and independence of thought. It is an inner process of moral – intellectual development. According to the passage, education must be respected in itself becauseView question
Q.14195·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyToday’s developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population, living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind’s creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm’s way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And ‘clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Which one of the following statements constitutes the central theme of this passage?
Q.14196·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyToday’s developing economies use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions. A healthier population, living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term. The spread of economic prosperity has always been intertwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely. As economic historians have explained, much of humankind’s creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term. Countries cannot grow out of harm’s way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability — particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers. And ‘clearing mangroves — the natural coastal buffers against storm surges — to make way for intensive farming or housing development, increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana. Consider the following statements : 1. All artists are whimsical. 2. Some artists are drug addicts. 3. Frustrated people are prone to become drug addicts. From the above three statements it may be concluded that
Q.14197·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyEducation, without a doubt, has an important functional, instrumental and utilitarian dimension. This is revealed when one asks questions such as 'what is the purpose of education?'. The answers, too often, are 'to acquire qualifications for employment/upward mobility', 'wider/higher (in terms of income) opportunities', and 'to meet the needs for trained human power in diverse fields for national development'. But in its deepest sense education is not instrumentalist. That is to say, it is not to be justified outside of itself because it leads to the acquisition of formal skills or of certain desired psychological – social attributes. It must be respected in itself. Education is thus not a commodity to be acquired or possessed and then used, but a process of inestimable importance to individuals and society, although it can and does have enormous use-value. Education then, is a process of expansion and conversion, not in the sense of converting or turning students into doctors or engineers, but the widening and turning out of the mind — the creation, sustenance and development of self-critical awareness and independence of thought. It is an inner process of moral – intellectual development. Education is a process in whichView question
Q.14198·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leafworm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, --- if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable --- then they would already have fallen out of use. In general, production with pesticides has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests. “The evolution of pesticide resistance is natural selection in action.” What does it actually imply?
Q.14199·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leafworm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, --- if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable --- then they would already have fallen out of use. In general, production with pesticides has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests. With reference to the passage, consider the following statements: 1. Use of chemical pesticides has become imperative in all the poor countries of the world. 2. Chemical pesticides should not have any role in sustainable agriculture. 3. One pest can develop resistance to many pesticides. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Q.14200·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leafworm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, --- if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable --- then they would already have fallen out of use. In general, production with pesticides has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?
Q.14201·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leafworm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, --- if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable --- then they would already have fallen out of use. In general, production with pesticides has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests. How do pesticides act as agents for the selection of resistant individuals in any pest population? 1. It is possible that in a pest population the individuals will behave differently due to their genetic makeup. 2. Pests do possess the ability to detoxify the pesticides. 3. Evolution of pesticide resistance is equally distributed in pest population. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Q.14202·Miscellaneous·2012·EasyChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population. This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number of pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leafworm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene. If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, --- if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable --- then they would already have fallen out of use. In general, production with pesticides has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent. Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests — pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests. Why is the use of chemical pesticides generally justified by giving the examples of poor and developing countries? 1. Developed countries can afford to do away with use of pesticides by adapting to organic farming, but it is imperative for poor and developing countries to use chemical pesticides. 2. In poor and developing countries, the pesticide addresses the problem of epidemic diseases of crops and eases the food problem. 3. The social and health costs of pesticide use are generally ignored in poor and developing countries. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?