IBPS PO Prelims - 2016

Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow. Economic interdependence and globalization has resulted in a system in which each country is largely dependent upon other countries for economic sustainability (though to varying degrees). This results in a substantial national security threat in the form of conflicting or offensive trade strategies between countries. Indeed, economics is often used directly as a weapon of war and conflict via trad e sanctions. This highlights a critical protectionist argument pertaining to the very real risk of dependency upon other nations for economic sustainability. An interesting discussion in economics is the relationship between trade and conflict. It has been noted, somewhat intuitively and empirically, that conflict reduces trade. However, is it also the case that trade reduces conflict? This question is largely unanswered, although the stances are becoming more highly developed. It is hypothesized that trade does not necessarily reduce conflict, but instead changes the nature of the conflict. Economic levers are much more practical than military levers, and are often used for similar reasons. For this reason, it is difficult to separate trade and conflict co mpletely because there is some critical overlap between the two. This is a fundamental foundation for the trade protectionism logic from a national security perspective. A more specific context for trade and conflict can be the way in which trade is compl icated during wartime. Indeed, trade during wartime can be a substantial threat to a nation depending on the scale and scope of the conflict (most notably who is involved). For example, consider World War II. In this scenario Germany was largely isolated i n the conflict, and therefore had extremely limited trade partners. Direct conflict will almost always result in a complete cease in trading not only between the country in which the war is occurring, but also any of that country's allies (who may or may n ot be directly involved). However, some argue self - sufficiency (via protectionism) in war is not necessary, as friendly nations will still provi de trade and economic support. Sanctions also play a dramatic role as an offensive militaristic manoeuver. Ira n and North Korea are strong modern examples as well as the recent history of the U.S. -Iraq war. In all of these circumstances, either the U.S. alone or along with a number of allies (representing substantial consumption percentages) actively limited the ability for these countries to trade and generate economic value for their nations (and subsequently their people). While this looks purely economic, it has important social and huma nitarian implications as well. Combining these ideas, it is clear that there is substantial national security value to trade protectionism. However, the opportunity cost of leveraging the ever -growing global markets makes this an unattractive prospect if taken to any extreme, as the benefits of global trade rapidly offset the risk of economic dependency upon hostile nations. Trade is specifically complicated for a nation during wartime because-

Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow. Economic interdependence and globalization has resulted in a system in which each country is largely dependent upon other countries for economic sustainability (though to varying degrees). This results in a substantial national security threat in the form of conflicting or offensive trade strategies between countries. Indeed, economics is often used directly as a weapon of war and conflict via trad e sanctions. This highlights a critical protectionist argument pertaining to the very real risk of dependency upon other nations for economic sustainability. An interesting discussion in economics is the relationship between trade and conflict. It has been noted, somewhat intuitively and empirically, that conflict reduces trade. However, is it also the case that trade reduces conflict? This question is largely unanswered, although the stances are becoming more highly developed. It is hypothesized that trade does not necessarily reduce conflict, but instead changes the nature of the conflict. Economic levers are much more practical than military levers, and are often used for similar reasons. For this reason, it is difficult to separate trade and conflict co mpletely because there is some critical overlap between the two. This is a fundamental foundation for the trade protectionism logic from a national security perspective. A more specific context for trade and conflict can be the way in which trade is compl icated during wartime. Indeed, trade during wartime can be a substantial threat to a nation depending on the scale and scope of the conflict (most notably who is involved). For example, consider World War II. In this scenario Germany was largely isolated i n the conflict, and therefore had extremely limited trade partners. Direct conflict will almost always result in a complete cease in trading not only between the country in which the war is occurring, but also any of that country's allies (who may or may n ot be directly involved). However, some argue self - sufficiency (via protectionism) in war is not necessary, as friendly nations will still provi de trade and economic support. Sanctions also play a dramatic role as an offensive militaristic manoeuver. Ira n and North Korea are strong modern examples as well as the recent history of the U.S. -Iraq war. In all of these circumstances, either the U.S. alone or along with a number of allies (representing substantial consumption percentages) actively limited the ability for these countries to trade and generate economic value for their nations (and subsequently their people). While this looks purely economic, it has important social and huma nitarian implications as well. Combining these ideas, it is clear that there is substantial national security value to trade protectionism. However, the opportunity cost of leveraging the ever -growing global markets makes this an unattractive prospect if taken to any extreme, as the benefits of global trade rapidly offset the risk of economic dependency upon hostile nations. What is the motive of the author behind writing this passage?

Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow. Economic interdependence and globalization has resulted in a system in which each country is largely dependent upon other countries for economic sustainability (though to varying degrees). This results in a substantial national security threat in the form of conflicting or offensive trade strategies between countries. Indeed, economics is often used directly as a weapon of war and conflict via trad e sanctions. This highlights a critical protectionist argument pertaining to the very real risk of dependency upon other nations for economic sustainability. An interesting discussion in economics is the relationship between trade and conflict. It has been noted, somewhat intuitively and empirically, that conflict reduces trade. However, is it also the case that trade reduces conflict? This question is largely unanswered, although the stances are becoming more highly developed. It is hypothesized that trade does not necessarily reduce conflict, but instead changes the nature of the conflict. Economic levers are much more practical than military levers, and are often used for similar reasons. For this reason, it is difficult to separate trade and conflict co mpletely because there is some critical overlap between the two. This is a fundamental foundation for the trade protectionism logic from a national security perspective. A more specific context for trade and conflict can be the way in which trade is compl icated during wartime. Indeed, trade during wartime can be a substantial threat to a nation depending on the scale and scope of the conflict (most notably who is involved). For example, consider World War II. In this scenario Germany was largely isolated i n the conflict, and therefore had extremely limited trade partners. Direct conflict will almost always result in a complete cease in trading not only between the country in which the war is occurring, but also any of that country's allies (who may or may n ot be directly involved). However, some argue self - sufficiency (via protectionism) in war is not necessary, as friendly nations will still provi de trade and economic support. Sanctions also play a dramatic role as an offensive militaristic manoeuver. Ira n and North Korea are strong modern examples as well as the recent history of the U.S. -Iraq war. In all of these circumstances, either the U.S. alone or along with a number of allies (representing substantial consumption percentages) actively limited the ability for these countries to trade and generate economic value for their nations (and subsequently their people). While this looks purely economic, it has important social and huma nitarian implications as well. Combining these ideas, it is clear that there is substantial national security value to trade protectionism. However, the opportunity cost of leveraging the ever -growing global markets makes this an unattractive prospect if taken to any extreme, as the benefits of global trade rapidly offset the risk of economic dependency upon hostile nations. Which of the following can be used as a weapon of war and conflict?

Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow. Economic interdependence and globalization has resulted in a system in which each country is largely dependent upon other countries for economic sustainability (though to varying degrees). This results in a substantial national security threat in the form of conflicting or offensive trade strategies between countries. Indeed, economics is often used directly as a weapon of war and conflict via trad e sanctions. This highlights a critical protectionist argument pertaining to the very real risk of dependency upon other nations for economic sustainability. An interesting discussion in economics is the relationship between trade and conflict. It has been noted, somewhat intuitively and empirically, that conflict reduces trade. However, is it also the case that trade reduces conflict? This question is largely unanswered, although the stances are becoming more highly developed. It is hypothesized that trade does not necessarily reduce conflict, but instead changes the nature of the conflict. Economic levers are much more practical than military levers, and are often used for similar reasons. For this reason, it is difficult to separate trade and conflict co mpletely because there is some critical overlap between the two. This is a fundamental foundation for the trade protectionism logic from a national security perspective. A more specific context for trade and conflict can be the way in which trade is compl icated during wartime. Indeed, trade during wartime can be a substantial threat to a nation depending on the scale and scope of the conflict (most notably who is involved). For example, consider World War II. In this scenario Germany was largely isolated i n the conflict, and therefore had extremely limited trade partners. Direct conflict will almost always result in a complete cease in trading not only between the country in which the war is occurring, but also any of that country's allies (who may or may n ot be directly involved). However, some argue self - sufficiency (via protectionism) in war is not necessary, as friendly nations will still provi de trade and economic support. Sanctions also play a dramatic role as an offensive militaristic manoeuver. Ira n and North Korea are strong modern examples as well as the recent history of the U.S. -Iraq war. In all of these circumstances, either the U.S. alone or along with a number of allies (representing substantial consumption percentages) actively limited the ability for these countries to trade and generate economic value for their nations (and subsequently their people). While this looks purely economic, it has important social and huma nitarian implications as well. Combining these ideas, it is clear that there is substantial national security value to trade protectionism. However, the opportunity cost of leveraging the ever -growing global markets makes this an unattractive prospect if taken to any extreme, as the benefits of global trade rapidly offset the risk of economic dependency upon hostile nations. Which of the following statements can be definitely concluded in the context of trade and conflict? (i). They are overlapping in nature (ii). It is believed that conflict reduces trade (iii). Trade changes the nature of conflict

Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow. Economic interdependence and globalization has resulted in a system in which each country is largely dependent upon other countries for economic sustainability (though to varying degrees). This results in a substantial national security threat in the form of conflicting or offensive trade strategies between countries. Indeed, economics is often used directly as a weapon of war and conflict via trad e sanctions. This highlights a critical protectionist argument pertaining to the very real risk of dependency upon other nations for economic sustainability. An interesting discussion in economics is the relationship between trade and conflict. It has been noted, somewhat intuitively and empirically, that conflict reduces trade. However, is it also the case that trade reduces conflict? This question is largely unanswered, although the stances are becoming more highly developed. It is hypothesized that trade does not necessarily reduce conflict, but instead changes the nature of the conflict. Economic levers are much more practical than military levers, and are often used for similar reasons. For this reason, it is difficult to separate trade and conflict co mpletely because there is some critical overlap between the two. This is a fundamental foundation for the trade protectionism logic from a national security perspective. A more specific context for trade and conflict can be the way in which trade is compl icated during wartime. Indeed, trade during wartime can be a substantial threat to a nation depending on the scale and scope of the conflict (most notably who is involved). For example, consider World War II. In this scenario Germany was largely isolated i n the conflict, and therefore had extremely limited trade partners. Direct conflict will almost always result in a complete cease in trading not only between the country in which the war is occurring, but also any of that country's allies (who may or may n ot be directly involved). However, some argue self - sufficiency (via protectionism) in war is not necessary, as friendly nations will still provi de trade and economic support. Sanctions also play a dramatic role as an offensive militaristic manoeuver. Ira n and North Korea are strong modern examples as well as the recent history of the U.S. -Iraq war. In all of these circumstances, either the U.S. alone or along with a number of allies (representing substantial consumption percentages) actively limited the ability for these countries to trade and generate economic value for their nations (and subsequently their people). While this looks purely economic, it has important social and huma nitarian implications as well. Combining these ideas, it is clear that there is substantial national security value to trade protectionism. However, the opportunity cost of leveraging the ever -growing global markets makes this an unattractive prospect if taken to any extreme, as the benefits of global trade rapidly offset the risk of economic dependency upon hostile nations. How did sanctions play a dramatic role as an offensive militaristic mano euvre during the U.S - Iraq war? (i). By isolating Iraq on various cultural and religious platforms (ii). By hindering the flo w of technology and innovation (iii). By inhibiting the trading capacity of Iraq