Time Left - 12:00 mins

Bank PO Prelims Special Mini Mock- 4.07.2020

Attempt now to get your rank among 2059 students!

Question 1

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

It’s a welcome that the government think tank Niti Aayog, along with the health ministry and World Bank, has come up with a model of public private partnership to boost India’s abysmal record of healthcare delivery. Public health and hospitals in India come under the domain of state governments and the model is in the form of a template which can be used to augment treatment facilities of non-communicable disease in smaller cities. This is a useful channel to expand the provision of healthcare facilities for resource strapped governments and needs to be scaled up radically across the board, as public healthcare delivery managed solely by the public sector has had a poor record in which Indians, in general, have little faith.

To be sure, states have already experimented with PPP in healthcare delivery in a limited way. Odisha announced this year that it had picked a private healthcare provider to operate and manage a cardiac care hospital in Jharsuguda, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have devised elaborate insurance schemes which make use of private healthcare facilities for surgical procedures. But there is much scope for expansion as well as a process of trial and error to see what works.

Debate in India too often gets bogged down in ideological debates on public versus private healthcare. But policy needs to be pragmatic and facilitate what works: if the capacities of government and private sector can be brought together in a synergistic way to get healthcare services to cover the entire population, there should be no objection. However, based on India’s experience so far, it is important to get the design of PPP right. In the Niti Aayog proposal, there is a benchmark for pricing. This needs to be complemented with proper oversight that will prevent unnecessary medical interventions as well as corruption.

Last but not the least, India has an abysmal doctor-patient ratio and a lot needs to be done to enhance the supply of doctors. Regulation of medical colleges emphasises more on curbs in supply than on ensuring that doctors with a licence to practice are of a minimum quality. Such irrational restrictions need to go, and Niti Aayog had some earlier suggestions to this effect which must be implemented as well. Unless India produces more doctors, whether for the public or private sector, healthcare delivery will not improve.

PPP is beneficial in improving the government resource delivery to Indians. Why can’t the public sector healthcare serve the same purpose as per the passage?

Question 2

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
It’s a welcome that the government think tank Niti Aayog, along with the health ministry and World Bank, has come up with a model of public private partnership to boost India’s abysmal record of healthcare delivery. Public health and hospitals in India come under the domain of state governments and the model is in the form of a template which can be used to augment treatment facilities of non-communicable disease in smaller cities. This is a useful channel to expand the provision of healthcare facilities for resource strapped governments and needs to be scaled up radically across the board, as public healthcare delivery managed solely by the public sector has had a poor record in which Indians, in general, have little faith.

To be sure, states have already experimented with PPP in healthcare delivery in a limited way. Odisha announced this year that it had picked a private healthcare provider to operate and manage a cardiac care hospital in Jharsuguda, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have devised elaborate insurance schemes which make use of private healthcare facilities for surgical procedures. But there is much scope for expansion as well as a process of trial and error to see what works.

Debate in India too often gets bogged down in ideological debates on public versus private healthcare. But policy needs to be pragmatic and facilitate what works: if the capacities of government and private sector can be brought together in a synergistic way to get healthcare services to cover the entire population, there should be no objection. However, based on India’s experience so far, it is important to get the design of PPP right. In the Niti Aayog proposal, there is a benchmark for pricing. This needs to be complemented with proper oversight that will prevent unnecessary medical interventions as well as corruption.

Last but not the least, India has an abysmal doctor-patient ratio and a lot needs to be done to enhance the supply of doctors. Regulation of medical colleges emphasises more on curbs in supply than on ensuring that doctors with a licence to practice are of a minimum quality. Such irrational restrictions need to go, and Niti Aayog had some earlier suggestions to this effect which must be implemented as well. Unless India produces more doctors, whether for the public or private sector, healthcare delivery will not improve.

What is the apparent approach of the author on PPP in healthcare sector?

Question 3

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
It’s a welcome that the government think tank Niti Aayog, along with the health ministry and World Bank, has come up with a model of public private partnership to boost India’s abysmal record of healthcare delivery. Public health and hospitals in India come under the domain of state governments and the model is in the form of a template which can be used to augment treatment facilities of non-communicable disease in smaller cities. This is a useful channel to expand the provision of healthcare facilities for resource strapped governments and needs to be scaled up radically across the board, as public healthcare delivery managed solely by the public sector has had a poor record in which Indians, in general, have little faith.

To be sure, states have already experimented with PPP in healthcare delivery in a limited way. Odisha announced this year that it had picked a private healthcare provider to operate and manage a cardiac care hospital in Jharsuguda, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have devised elaborate insurance schemes which make use of private healthcare facilities for surgical procedures. But there is much scope for expansion as well as a process of trial and error to see what works.

Debate in India too often gets bogged down in ideological debates on public versus private healthcare. But policy needs to be pragmatic and facilitate what works: if the capacities of government and private sector can be brought together in a synergistic way to get healthcare services to cover the entire population, there should be no objection. However, based on India’s experience so far, it is important to get the design of PPP right. In the Niti Aayog proposal, there is a benchmark for pricing. This needs to be complemented with proper oversight that will prevent unnecessary medical interventions as well as corruption.

Last but not the least, India has an abysmal doctor-patient ratio and a lot needs to be done to enhance the supply of doctors. Regulation of medical colleges emphasises more on curbs in supply than on ensuring that doctors with a licence to practice are of a minimum quality. Such irrational restrictions need to go, and Niti Aayog had some earlier suggestions to this effect which must be implemented as well. Unless India produces more doctors, whether for the public or private sector, healthcare delivery will not improve.

What is the negative effect of tight regulations for admittance in medical colleges?

Question 4

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
It’s a welcome that the government think tank Niti Aayog, along with the health ministry and World Bank, has come up with a model of public private partnership to boost India’s abysmal record of healthcare delivery. Public health and hospitals in India come under the domain of state governments and the model is in the form of a template which can be used to augment treatment facilities of non-communicable disease in smaller cities. This is a useful channel to expand the provision of healthcare facilities for resource strapped governments and needs to be scaled up radically across the board, as public healthcare delivery managed solely by the public sector has had a poor record in which Indians, in general, have little faith.

To be sure, states have already experimented with PPP in healthcare delivery in a limited way. Odisha announced this year that it had picked a private healthcare provider to operate and manage a cardiac care hospital in Jharsuguda, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have devised elaborate insurance schemes which make use of private healthcare facilities for surgical procedures. But there is much scope for expansion as well as a process of trial and error to see what works.

Debate in India too often gets bogged down in ideological debates on public versus private healthcare. But policy needs to be pragmatic and facilitate what works: if the capacities of government and private sector can be brought together in a synergistic way to get healthcare services to cover the entire population, there should be no objection. However, based on India’s experience so far, it is important to get the design of PPP right. In the Niti Aayog proposal, there is a benchmark for pricing. This needs to be complemented with proper oversight that will prevent unnecessary medical interventions as well as corruption.

Last but not the least, India has an abysmal doctor-patient ratio and a lot needs to be done to enhance the supply of doctors. Regulation of medical colleges emphasises more on curbs in supply than on ensuring that doctors with a licence to practice are of a minimum quality. Such irrational restrictions need to go, and Niti Aayog had some earlier suggestions to this effect which must be implemented as well. Unless India produces more doctors, whether for the public or private sector, healthcare delivery will not improve.

Which is the only way for India to improve healthcare delivery?

Question 5

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
It’s a welcome that the government think tank Niti Aayog, along with the health ministry and World Bank, has come up with a model of public private partnership to boost India’s abysmal record of healthcare delivery. Public health and hospitals in India come under the domain of state governments and the model is in the form of a template which can be used to augment treatment facilities of non-communicable disease in smaller cities. This is a useful channel to expand the provision of healthcare facilities for resource strapped governments and needs to be scaled up radically across the board, as public healthcare delivery managed solely by the public sector has had a poor record in which Indians, in general, have little faith.

To be sure, states have already experimented with PPP in healthcare delivery in a limited way. Odisha announced this year that it had picked a private healthcare provider to operate and manage a cardiac care hospital in Jharsuguda, while Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have devised elaborate insurance schemes which make use of private healthcare facilities for surgical procedures. But there is much scope for expansion as well as a process of trial and error to see what works.

Debate in India too often gets bogged down in ideological debates on public versus private healthcare. But policy needs to be pragmatic and facilitate what works: if the capacities of government and private sector can be brought together in a synergistic way to get healthcare services to cover the entire population, there should be no objection. However, based on India’s experience so far, it is important to get the design of PPP right. In the Niti Aayog proposal, there is a benchmark for pricing. This needs to be complemented with proper oversight that will prevent unnecessary medical interventions as well as corruption.

Last but not the least, India has an abysmal doctor-patient ratio and a lot needs to be done to enhance the supply of doctors. Regulation of medical colleges emphasises more on curbs in supply than on ensuring that doctors with a licence to practice are of a minimum quality. Such irrational restrictions need to go, and Niti Aayog had some earlier suggestions to this effect which must be implemented as well. Unless India produces more doctors, whether for the public or private sector, healthcare delivery will not improve.

Which of the following options is against the author’s belief in the passage?

Question 6

Direction: Carefully study the bar graph and answer the following questions:
Given bar graph shows the production of mobile phones by three companies A,B & C in last 5 years.
Which company produces maximum no of mobile phones during last five year?

Question 7

Direction: Carefully study the bar graph and answer the following questions:
Given bar graph shows the production of mobile phones by three companies A,B & C in last 5 years.
The total production percentage of Company A among the all three company in year 2016.

Question 8

Direction: Carefully study the bar graph and answer the following questions:
Given bar graph shows the production of mobile phones by three companies A,B & C in last 5 years.
What is the difference between Company B in 2013 and Production of Company C in 2015?

Question 9

Direction: Carefully study the bar graph and answer the following questions:
Given bar graph shows the production of mobile phones by three companies A,B & C in last 5 years.
What is the percentage increase in the production of company C from 2013 to 2017?

Question 10

Direction: Carefully study the bar graph and answer the following questions:
Given bar graph shows the production of mobile phones by three companies A,B & C in last 5 years.
What is the difference between the percentage increase production by company B during 2014 to 2015, and the percentage increase production by company A during 2013 to 2014?

Question 11

Direction: On the basis of the numbers given below, answer the following questions:

266 789 456 763 279
What is the difference between the two numbers which are exactly divisible by 3 but not by 6?

Question 12

Direction: On the basis of the numbers given below, answer the following questions:

266 789 456 763 279
If all the digits within a number are arranged in decreasing order and after the arrangement if the number at unit’s place is odd, 1 is added to it. Which of the following is the sum obtained on adding all the digits at unit’s place?

Question 13

Direction: On the basis of the numbers given below, answer the following questions:
266 789 456 763 279
If we subtract 1 from even numbers (3-digit even number), then what will be the sum of the digts at unit’s place of all the numbers?

Question 14

Direction: On the basis of the numbers given below, answer the following questions:
266 789 456 763 279
If we add 3 to every even digit which is less than 7 within a number. Which one of the following is the second highest number?

Question 15

Direction: On the basis of the numbers given below, answer the following questions:
266 789 456 763 279
If all the digits within a number are arranged in such a way that even digits (within a number) are arranged first in increasing order and then the odd digits are arranged. Which one of the following is the third lowest number?
  • 2059 attempts
  • 9 upvotes
  • 36 comments
Jan 17PO, Clerk, SO, Insurance