Cloze Test For SBI and Dena Bank PO Exam 2017

Just a few days are left for SBI PO Examination. It is time to pace up your preparation with New Pattern Questions of English section for SBI PO Prelims 2017. These English questions will also help you in preparing for BOB PO 2017 recruitment examination. We have also provided study notes for the grammatical part. You can practice New pattern English and Old pattern Questions as well.

Directions (1-10): In the following passage there are blanks, each of
which has been numbered. These numbers are printed in the passage and against
each, five words are suggested, one of which fits the blanks appropriately.
Find out the appropriate word in each case.
April 26  is World Intellectual
Property (IP) day. Over the years, global IP –(1)– have steadily expanded
beyond  World Trade Organisation (WTO)
requirements, thanks to free trade agreements such as the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which India is currently –(2)—
with its trading partners. But  there is
new cause for worry. Apart from increasing the scope of existing IP rights,
there is a move to create new IP-like rights. A case in point is data
exclusivity over clinical trial data submitted by drug companies to the
regulatory authorities for market approval, the grant of which could severely
undermine access to medicines.
The propensity to expand the universe of IP is not new: businesses
have demanded patent protection for the way they do business; motorcycle
manufacturers have got into dispute  over
the trademark on the exhaust sound of motorcycles; and animal activists have
fought for copyright in a selfie taken by a monkey. IP in the modern world
defies definition, transcends boundaries and has become synonymous with
ascribing value to things that we don’t fully understand. The issue of whether
India should offer data exclusivity — one of the key issues discussed in the RCEP
— is tied to our understanding of what amounts to IP and whether we are obliged
to protect it.

Data exclusivity prevents drug –(3)— from referring to or relying
on data submitted by an originator company relating to a drug’s safety and
—(4)— while approving bioequivalent versions of the same drug, i.e.
therapeutically equivalent generics and biosimilars for a fixed period of time.
A drug that comes to the market for the first time undergoes extensive
pre clinical and clinical trials on animals initially and human beings later
before it is introduced for public use — a 
time-consuming and expensive process. Developed countries, on behalf of
their pharmaceutical lobbies, seek data exclusivity in developing countries
arguing that this is necessary to recognise and incentivise the efforts put in
to bring a new drug to the market along with recovering the research and
development  costs incurred — arguments
similar to those used to justify the grant of patents. 
However, such exclusivity would prevent market entry of generic
versions of the drug, which could be —(5)— to the larger public interest.
Pharmaceutical companies have been pushing 
for data exclusivity to prolong 
already existing —(6)— and delay competition from generics even
after the expiry of the 20-year patent term or to gain exclusivity on
non-patented drugs. In India, such a system may negate the impact of Section
3(d) of the Patents Act, which disallows evergreening patents. With data
exclusivity, a company could nevertheless gain exclusive rights over such drugs
even though they are not patented. This is because during the period of
exclusivity, regulators are barred from using the originators’ data to grant
marketing approval to generics; generic companies would then be required to
repeat the entire 
cycle of clinical trials already conducted instead of merely
establishing bioequivalence to prove efficacy. As seen  in countries where data exclusivity is
granted, generic companies do not undertake such clinical trials and their versions
of the drug accordingly stay off the market as long as the period of data
exclusivity lasts. With restricted market entry of generics, artificially high
drug prices remain which  puts medicines
beyond public reach. Apart from the financial costs,  repeated clinical trials on human subjects
raise ethical and moral concerns.
Unlike in the West,  India does
not offer data exclusivity and allows bioequivalent generics to be registered
based on, among other things, trial data available in the —(7)—- domain.
The argument that clinical trial data needs exclusivity in the light
of the money expended is an untenable one. Automotive companies spend millions
of dollars on data generated in car crash tests to  ensure passenger and —(8)—- safety.  Automotive companies have not made any
—(9)— claim on the data generated, yet. Unlike automotive companies which
use crash test dummies, pharmaceutical companies that test their drugs on human
subjects have a greater obligation to make the data public and IP-free. The
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)  does not mandate data exclusivity. Providing
data exclusivity is a TRIPS-plus measure. According IP-like protection to data
exclusivity is not advisable for three reasons.
First, it is an absolute protection granted without any institutional
check  such as opposition and revocation
as available in other forms of IP and ends up as an irrevocable exclusivity to
the originator. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus, 132 S.
Ct. 1289 (2012) has excluded —(10)— protection to biological
correlations,  terming it as an extension
of natural laws. Extending IP-like protection to clinical observations — the
primary objective of data exclusivity — will open a window to claim exclusivity
in a subject matter traditionally excluded under patent law. Third, offering
IP-like exclusivity solely on the basis of money spent in regulatory testing
will set a bad precedent for other industries 
that may now claim an IP when there is none.
(a) assembly
(b) values
(c) standards
(d) morals
(e) mortal
(a) fighting
(b) demonstrating
(c) assembling
(d) neglecting
(e) negotiating
(a) regulators
(b) addict
(c) conflict
(d) usurp
(e) manufacturer
(a) inefficient
(b) efficacy
(c) danger
(d) security
(e) adrenal
(a) appealing
(b) hazardous
(c) beneficial
(d) detrimental
(e) acceptable
(a) monocytes
(b) monotony
(c) monogamous
(d) monogamy
(e) monopoly
(a) personal
(b) public
(c) private
(d) particular
(e) patriarch
(a) pedestrian
(b) perennial
(c) peripheral
(d) peripheral
(e) parochial
(a) propensity
(b) property
(c) proper
(d) proprietary
(e) propitious
(a) patient
(b) patent
(c) petulant
(d) petal
(e) pertinent
Directions (11-15): In each of the following questions a related pair
of words is followed by four pairs of words or phrases. Select the pair that
best expresses a relationship similar to the one expressed in the question
(a) menagerie : animals
(b) field : grass
(c) botany : herbs
(d) grotesque : jokes
(e) None of these
(a) blood : heart
(b) pen : tool
(c) sorcery : spirits
(d) novel : prose
(e) None of these
(a) sequence : energy
(b) color : voltage
(c) time : work
(d) revolution : illumination
(e) None of these
(a) whiskey : corn
(b) bourbon : hops
(c) bread : yeast
(d) vodka : grapes
(e) None of these
(a) fetish : aversion
(b) bias : disinterested
(c) noisome : fetid
(d) predisposition : fairness
(e) None of these