For several weeks the world has watched as India’s citizens—including academics and students—have taken to the streets. Tens of thousands have been gathering to read out the preamble to the Indian constitution, as a mark of protest against a discriminatory new citizenship law. The law provides a path to citizenship for recent refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It is a means to providing permanent sanctuary for religious minorities fleeing hardship or persecution in these countries—an intention that is to be commended. What is troubling is that decisions on who can—and cannot—apply for citizenship will be made on the basis of religious belief.

Tragically, some of the peaceful protests are being met with violence, and university campuses are not immune. The latest high-profile incident took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, where students have also been protesting over an increase in accommodation fees. On the evening of 5 January, people wearing masks and carrying iron rods, stones and wooden clubs entered the campus and launched an attack. However, the city’s police failed to provide protection. In mid-December, police entered two of India’s older universities and students were beaten, property was damaged and tear gas used. Both institutions had to close temporarily, disrupting teaching and research. Jamia Millia’s vice-chancellor said that it is not acceptable for police to harm innocent students.

The severity of the police action has rightly prompted a chorus of international concern.Among those speaking up are the Nobel prize winners Abhijit Banerjee, an economist and JNU alumnus now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who is also critical of the new law.

Many of the government’s supporters are upset that university students, academics and scientists are also opposing the new law. But they must know that freedom of expression is core to a university’s mission; that the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against government policies is a right, not a privilege. Without it, no opposition would be able to present its case to the public—as members of the current government and its supporters did in the years they were out of power.

Academics in India are right to be alarmed and to speak up, because force has been used on university campuses, causing fear. India’s authorities must take the necessary steps to protect their nation’s universities and their people’s freedom of speech. They must heed the words of the prime minister’s principal scientific adviser, Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, who said unequivocally:"Campuses are places for learning, discussion and research. There is no place at all for violence."

According to the first paragraph, what is the function of India’s New Citizenship Law?

For several weeks the world has watched as India’s citizens—including academics and students—have taken to the streets. Tens of thousands have been gathering to read out the preamble to the Indian constitution, as a mark of protest against a discriminatory new citizenship law. The law provides a path to citizenship for recent refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It is a means to providing permanent sanctuary for religious minorities fleeing hardship or persecution in these countries—an intention that is to be commended. What is troubling is that decisions on who can—and cannot—apply for citizenship will be made on the basis of religious belief.

Tragically, some of the peaceful protests are being met with violence, and university campuses are not immune. The latest high-profile incident took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, where students have also been protesting over an increase in accommodation fees. On the evening of 5 January, people wearing masks and carrying iron rods, stones and wooden clubs entered the campus and launched an attack. However, the city’s police failed to provide protection. In mid-December, police entered two of India’s older universities and students were beaten, property was damaged and tear gas used. Both institutions had to close temporarily, disrupting teaching and research. Jamia Millia’s vice-chancellor said that it is not acceptable for police to harm innocent students.

The severity of the police action has rightly prompted a chorus of international concern.Among those speaking up are the Nobel prize winners Abhijit Banerjee, an economist and JNU alumnus now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who is also critical of the new law.

Many of the government’s supporters are upset that university students, academics and scientists are also opposing the new law. But they must know that freedom of expression is core to a university’s mission; that the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against government policies is a right, not a privilege. Without it, no opposition would be able to present its case to the public—as members of the current government and its supporters did in the years they were out of power.

Academics in India are right to be alarmed and to speak up, because force has been used on university campuses, causing fear. India’s authorities must take the necessary steps to protect their nation’s universities and their people’s freedom of speech. They must heed the words of the prime minister’s principal scientific adviser, Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, who said unequivocally:"Campuses are places for learning, discussion and research. There is no place at all for violence."

University campuses are not immune to violence because______.

For several weeks the world has watched as India’s citizens—including academics and students—have taken to the streets. Tens of thousands have been gathering to read out the preamble to the Indian constitution, as a mark of protest against a discriminatory new citizenship law. The law provides a path to citizenship for recent refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It is a means to providing permanent sanctuary for religious minorities fleeing hardship or persecution in these countries—an intention that is to be commended. What is troubling is that decisions on who can—and cannot—apply for citizenship will be made on the basis of religious belief.

Tragically, some of the peaceful protests are being met with violence, and university campuses are not immune. The latest high-profile incident took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, where students have also been protesting over an increase in accommodation fees. On the evening of 5 January, people wearing masks and carrying iron rods, stones and wooden clubs entered the campus and launched an attack. However, the city’s police failed to provide protection. In mid-December, police entered two of India’s older universities and students were beaten, property was damaged and tear gas used. Both institutions had to close temporarily, disrupting teaching and research. Jamia Millia’s vice-chancellor said that it is not acceptable for police to harm innocent students.

The severity of the police action has rightly prompted a chorus of international concern.Among those speaking up are the Nobel prize winners Abhijit Banerjee, an economist and JNU alumnus now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who is also critical of the new law.

Many of the government’s supporters are upset that university students, academics and scientists are also opposing the new law. But they must know that freedom of expression is core to a university’s mission; that the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against government policies is a right, not a privilege. Without it, no opposition would be able to present its case to the public—as members of the current government and its supporters did in the years they were out of power.

Academics in India are right to be alarmed and to speak up, because force has been used on university campuses, causing fear. India’s authorities must take the necessary steps to protect their nation’s universities and their people’s freedom of speech. They must heed the words of the prime minister’s principal scientific adviser, Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, who said unequivocally:"Campuses are places for learning, discussion and research. There is no place at all for violence."

Which of the following is true according to Paragraph 4?

For several weeks the world has watched as India’s citizens—including academics and students—have taken to the streets. Tens of thousands have been gathering to read out the preamble to the Indian constitution, as a mark of protest against a discriminatory new citizenship law. The law provides a path to citizenship for recent refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It is a means to providing permanent sanctuary for religious minorities fleeing hardship or persecution in these countries—an intention that is to be commended. What is troubling is that decisions on who can—and cannot—apply for citizenship will be made on the basis of religious belief.

Tragically, some of the peaceful protests are being met with violence, and university campuses are not immune. The latest high-profile incident took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, where students have also been protesting over an increase in accommodation fees. On the evening of 5 January, people wearing masks and carrying iron rods, stones and wooden clubs entered the campus and launched an attack. However, the city’s police failed to provide protection. In mid-December, police entered two of India’s older universities and students were beaten, property was damaged and tear gas used. Both institutions had to close temporarily, disrupting teaching and research. Jamia Millia’s vice-chancellor said that it is not acceptable for police to harm innocent students.

The severity of the police action has rightly prompted a chorus of international concern.Among those speaking up are the Nobel prize winners Abhijit Banerjee, an economist and JNU alumnus now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who is also critical of the new law.

Many of the government’s supporters are upset that university students, academics and scientists are also opposing the new law. But they must know that freedom of expression is core to a university’s mission; that the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against government policies is a right, not a privilege. Without it, no opposition would be able to present its case to the public—as members of the current government and its supporters did in the years they were out of power.

Academics in India are right to be alarmed and to speak up, because force has been used on university campuses, causing fear. India’s authorities must take the necessary steps to protect their nation’s universities and their people’s freedom of speech. They must heed the words of the prime minister’s principal scientific adviser, Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, who said unequivocally:"Campuses are places for learning, discussion and research. There is no place at all for violence."

What can we infer from the words of Krishnaswamy?

For several weeks the world has watched as India’s citizens—including academics and students—have taken to the streets. Tens of thousands have been gathering to read out the preamble to the Indian constitution, as a mark of protest against a discriminatory new citizenship law. The law provides a path to citizenship for recent refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It is a means to providing permanent sanctuary for religious minorities fleeing hardship or persecution in these countries—an intention that is to be commended. What is troubling is that decisions on who can—and cannot—apply for citizenship will be made on the basis of religious belief.

Tragically, some of the peaceful protests are being met with violence, and university campuses are not immune. The latest high-profile incident took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, where students have also been protesting over an increase in accommodation fees. On the evening of 5 January, people wearing masks and carrying iron rods, stones and wooden clubs entered the campus and launched an attack. However, the city’s police failed to provide protection. In mid-December, police entered two of India’s older universities and students were beaten, property was damaged and tear gas used. Both institutions had to close temporarily, disrupting teaching and research. Jamia Millia’s vice-chancellor said that it is not acceptable for police to harm innocent students.

The severity of the police action has rightly prompted a chorus of international concern.Among those speaking up are the Nobel prize winners Abhijit Banerjee, an economist and JNU alumnus now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who is also critical of the new law.

Many of the government’s supporters are upset that university students, academics and scientists are also opposing the new law. But they must know that freedom of expression is core to a university’s mission; that the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against government policies is a right, not a privilege. Without it, no opposition would be able to present its case to the public—as members of the current government and its supporters did in the years they were out of power.

Academics in India are right to be alarmed and to speak up, because force has been used on university campuses, causing fear. India’s authorities must take the necessary steps to protect their nation’s universities and their people’s freedom of speech. They must heed the words of the prime minister’s principal scientific adviser, Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, who said unequivocally:"Campuses are places for learning, discussion and research. There is no place at all for violence."

which of the following may be the best title of the text?

One thing scientists are sure will happen as the world warms is that the seas will rise,putting millions of people at risk of land erosion, flooding and permanent displacement. But ask experts exactly how far oceans will advance, and their answer gets far more qualified.A study published May 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that previous estimates of how bad sea-level rise could get were too conservative—and that coastal communities must contemplate more severe, long-term impacts from humans’ addiction to fossil fuels.

Researchers asked leading experts on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to provide their best updated estimates for the future of these frozen masses as temperatures spike.Aggregating these, the researchers concluded that the range of outcomes scientists now consider possible has shifted markedly toward more melting and, therefore, higher seas.For example, in a business-as-usual scenario, the median estimate from the United Nations’ last major climate report should have been more than doubled. In fact, the researchers found that it is unlikely, but plausible, that the oceans could rise a staggering 6.5 feet by 2100 if emissions levels continue to be high. That would swamp roughly as much territory as is contained in all of Western Europe and make 187 million people homeless.

Since the United Nations’ last major climate assessment, the scientists watching the Earth’s major ice sheets have witnessed massive ice losses and tried to better model the way the sheets fracture, how liquid water interacts with the solid stuff, and the instability of ice cliffs. They have also done more to assess how these ice sheets behaved in previous warming epochs. They have not been able to provide more precise estimates for how bad things could get except to say the outlook is worse than they thought previously. As with many effects of human-forced planetary warming, the precise nature of some consequences will be known only after they occur, when it is too late.

It is this sort of uncertainty that opponents of addressing global warming have played up to argue against action. Yet although it is possible to contemplate less-bad consequences at one unlikely end of the probability spectrum, it is also possible to foresee absolutely devastating results on the other end. And, as scientists have continued to refine their understanding of Earth systems, the distribution of the scenarios that seem probable has tended to move in the wrong direction.President Trump and those in his administration ignore scientists’ increasingly dire warnings to the peril of their children, grandchildren and the rest of humanity.

The word "qualified" (Line 3, Para. 1) is the closest in meaning to______.

One thing scientists are sure will happen as the world warms is that the seas will rise,putting millions of people at risk of land erosion, flooding and permanent displacement. But ask experts exactly how far oceans will advance, and their answer gets far more qualified.A study published May 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that previous estimates of how bad sea-level rise could get were too conservative—and that coastal communities must contemplate more severe, long-term impacts from humans’ addiction to fossil fuels.

Researchers asked leading experts on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to provide their best updated estimates for the future of these frozen masses as temperatures spike.Aggregating these, the researchers concluded that the range of outcomes scientists now consider possible has shifted markedly toward more melting and, therefore, higher seas.For example, in a business-as-usual scenario, the median estimate from the United Nations’ last major climate report should have been more than doubled. In fact, the researchers found that it is unlikely, but plausible, that the oceans could rise a staggering 6.5 feet by 2100 if emissions levels continue to be high. That would swamp roughly as much territory as is contained in all of Western Europe and make 187 million people homeless.

Since the United Nations’ last major climate assessment, the scientists watching the Earth’s major ice sheets have witnessed massive ice losses and tried to better model the way the sheets fracture, how liquid water interacts with the solid stuff, and the instability of ice cliffs. They have also done more to assess how these ice sheets behaved in previous warming epochs. They have not been able to provide more precise estimates for how bad things could get except to say the outlook is worse than they thought previously. As with many effects of human-forced planetary warming, the precise nature of some consequences will be known only after they occur, when it is too late.

It is this sort of uncertainty that opponents of addressing global warming have played up to argue against action. Yet although it is possible to contemplate less-bad consequences at one unlikely end of the probability spectrum, it is also possible to foresee absolutely devastating results on the other end. And, as scientists have continued to refine their understanding of Earth systems, the distribution of the scenarios that seem probable has tended to move in the wrong direction.President Trump and those in his administration ignore scientists’ increasingly dire warnings to the peril of their children, grandchildren and the rest of humanity.

The United Nations’ last major climate report is mentioned to______.

One thing scientists are sure will happen as the world warms is that the seas will rise,putting millions of people at risk of land erosion, flooding and permanent displacement. But ask experts exactly how far oceans will advance, and their answer gets far more qualified.A study published May 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that previous estimates of how bad sea-level rise could get were too conservative—and that coastal communities must contemplate more severe, long-term impacts from humans’ addiction to fossil fuels.

Researchers asked leading experts on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to provide their best updated estimates for the future of these frozen masses as temperatures spike.Aggregating these, the researchers concluded that the range of outcomes scientists now consider possible has shifted markedly toward more melting and, therefore, higher seas.For example, in a business-as-usual scenario, the median estimate from the United Nations’ last major climate report should have been more than doubled. In fact, the researchers found that it is unlikely, but plausible, that the oceans could rise a staggering 6.5 feet by 2100 if emissions levels continue to be high. That would swamp roughly as much territory as is contained in all of Western Europe and make 187 million people homeless.

Since the United Nations’ last major climate assessment, the scientists watching the Earth’s major ice sheets have witnessed massive ice losses and tried to better model the way the sheets fracture, how liquid water interacts with the solid stuff, and the instability of ice cliffs. They have also done more to assess how these ice sheets behaved in previous warming epochs. They have not been able to provide more precise estimates for how bad things could get except to say the outlook is worse than they thought previously. As with many effects of human-forced planetary warming, the precise nature of some consequences will be known only after they occur, when it is too late.

It is this sort of uncertainty that opponents of addressing global warming have played up to argue against action. Yet although it is possible to contemplate less-bad consequences at one unlikely end of the probability spectrum, it is also possible to foresee absolutely devastating results on the other end. And, as scientists have continued to refine their understanding of Earth systems, the distribution of the scenarios that seem probable has tended to move in the wrong direction.President Trump and those in his administration ignore scientists’ increasingly dire warnings to the peril of their children, grandchildren and the rest of humanity.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that______.

One thing scientists are sure will happen as the world warms is that the seas will rise,putting millions of people at risk of land erosion, flooding and permanent displacement. But ask experts exactly how far oceans will advance, and their answer gets far more qualified.A study published May 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that previous estimates of how bad sea-level rise could get were too conservative—and that coastal communities must contemplate more severe, long-term impacts from humans’ addiction to fossil fuels.

Researchers asked leading experts on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to provide their best updated estimates for the future of these frozen masses as temperatures spike.Aggregating these, the researchers concluded that the range of outcomes scientists now consider possible has shifted markedly toward more melting and, therefore, higher seas.For example, in a business-as-usual scenario, the median estimate from the United Nations’ last major climate report should have been more than doubled. In fact, the researchers found that it is unlikely, but plausible, that the oceans could rise a staggering 6.5 feet by 2100 if emissions levels continue to be high. That would swamp roughly as much territory as is contained in all of Western Europe and make 187 million people homeless.

Since the United Nations’ last major climate assessment, the scientists watching the Earth’s major ice sheets have witnessed massive ice losses and tried to better model the way the sheets fracture, how liquid water interacts with the solid stuff, and the instability of ice cliffs. They have also done more to assess how these ice sheets behaved in previous warming epochs. They have not been able to provide more precise estimates for how bad things could get except to say the outlook is worse than they thought previously. As with many effects of human-forced planetary warming, the precise nature of some consequences will be known only after they occur, when it is too late.

It is this sort of uncertainty that opponents of addressing global warming have played up to argue against action. Yet although it is possible to contemplate less-bad consequences at one unlikely end of the probability spectrum, it is also possible to foresee absolutely devastating results on the other end. And, as scientists have continued to refine their understanding of Earth systems, the distribution of the scenarios that seem probable has tended to move in the wrong direction.President Trump and those in his administration ignore scientists’ increasingly dire warnings to the peril of their children, grandchildren and the rest of humanity.

The author seems to view the Trump administration with______.

One thing scientists are sure will happen as the world warms is that the seas will rise,putting millions of people at risk of land erosion, flooding and permanent displacement. But ask experts exactly how far oceans will advance, and their answer gets far more qualified.A study published May 20 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that previous estimates of how bad sea-level rise could get were too conservative—and that coastal communities must contemplate more severe, long-term impacts from humans’ addiction to fossil fuels.

Researchers asked leading experts on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to provide their best updated estimates for the future of these frozen masses as temperatures spike.Aggregating these, the researchers concluded that the range of outcomes scientists now consider possible has shifted markedly toward more melting and, therefore, higher seas.For example, in a business-as-usual scenario, the median estimate from the United Nations’ last major climate report should have been more than doubled. In fact, the researchers found that it is unlikely, but plausible, that the oceans could rise a staggering 6.5 feet by 2100 if emissions levels continue to be high. That would swamp roughly as much territory as is contained in all of Western Europe and make 187 million people homeless.

Since the United Nations’ last major climate assessment, the scientists watching the Earth’s major ice sheets have witnessed massive ice losses and tried to better model the way the sheets fracture, how liquid water interacts with the solid stuff, and the instability of ice cliffs. They have also done more to assess how these ice sheets behaved in previous warming epochs. They have not been able to provide more precise estimates for how bad things could get except to say the outlook is worse than they thought previously. As with many effects of human-forced planetary warming, the precise nature of some consequences will be known only after they occur, when it is too late.

It is this sort of uncertainty that opponents of addressing global warming have played up to argue against action. Yet although it is possible to contemplate less-bad consequences at one unlikely end of the probability spectrum, it is also possible to foresee absolutely devastating results on the other end. And, as scientists have continued to refine their understanding of Earth systems, the distribution of the scenarios that seem probable has tended to move in the wrong direction.President Trump and those in his administration ignore scientists’ increasingly dire warnings to the peril of their children, grandchildren and the rest of humanity.

In this text, the author mainly discusses that______.

In its prime Goldman Sachs was exceptional Fifteen years ago, just before the global financial crisis, the bank easily outshone its Wall Street rivals—winning the most lucrative deals and making the most profitable trades. It printed money, both for shareholders and employees. Although the crisis imperiled the firm along with the rest of the banking industry, it navigated the chaos relatively well. Success allowed it to be haughty—while other banks engaged in the grubby game of sucking up to investors, Goldman remained secretive and enigmatic.

How times have changed. This week the firm held its first investor day, led by David Solomon, who took over as chief executive last year. It comes after a long period of underperformance. A dollar invested in Goldman in 2010 would be worth just $1.60 today. A dollar wagered on JPMorgan Chase would be worth $4.10. Goldman has become a laggard.

Its predicament reflects two big changes in Western banking. One is the declining profitability of capital-markets activity, in large part the result of tighter rules, including higher capital requirements for riskier activity, penalties on lenders that rely on debt markets to fund themselves and tighter compliance regimes. The second is the rising importance of technology in the industry, as consumers and corporate borrowers shift to digital banking. This appears to give an immediate advantage to very large lenders that can support huge IT budgets, and to big tech platform firms that have vast numbers of customers who can be sold financial products, as is already the case in much of Asia.

Goldman has been on the wrong side of these trends. Mr Solomon’s new plan is, in part, to become more like JPMorgan Chase, with a broader range of services and funding. Goldman wants to expand Marcus, its fast-growing consumer arm, and also to build out its transaction-banking division that ships money around the world for companies. It plans to attract more deposits, which are typically the cheapest way to fund a bank. It has hired an army of tech experts. All this, Goldman hopes, will raise its return on tangible equity to 14%.

Goldman says it recognizes the need for fundamental reform. It boasts of transforming its macho culture with a more diverse intake of recruits. But you can question how much it has really changed. It continues to allocate half its capital to its once-famed trading operation, despite its drab returns. And it still spends a lavish $12bn a year on rewarding its staff, even as the firm earned only $8bn for its shareholders in 2019. If Goldman’s reinvention fails it may ultimately have to do a deal. Uniting Wells Fargo and Goldman, for example, would create something more like JPMorgan Chase.

Which of the following represents change of times?

In its prime Goldman Sachs was exceptional Fifteen years ago, just before the global financial crisis, the bank easily outshone its Wall Street rivals—winning the most lucrative deals and making the most profitable trades. It printed money, both for shareholders and employees. Although the crisis imperiled the firm along with the rest of the banking industry, it navigated the chaos relatively well. Success allowed it to be haughty—while other banks engaged in the grubby game of sucking up to investors, Goldman remained secretive and enigmatic.

How times have changed. This week the firm held its first investor day, led by David Solomon, who took over as chief executive last year. It comes after a long period of underperformance. A dollar invested in Goldman in 2010 would be worth just $1.60 today. A dollar wagered on JPMorgan Chase would be worth $4.10. Goldman has become a laggard.

Its predicament reflects two big changes in Western banking. One is the declining profitability of capital-markets activity, in large part the result of tighter rules, including higher capital requirements for riskier activity, penalties on lenders that rely on debt markets to fund themselves and tighter compliance regimes. The second is the rising importance of technology in the industry, as consumers and corporate borrowers shift to digital banking. This appears to give an immediate advantage to very large lenders that can support huge IT budgets, and to big tech platform firms that have vast numbers of customers who can be sold financial products, as is already the case in much of Asia.

Goldman has been on the wrong side of these trends. Mr Solomon’s new plan is, in part, to become more like JPMorgan Chase, with a broader range of services and funding. Goldman wants to expand Marcus, its fast-growing consumer arm, and also to build out its transaction-banking division that ships money around the world for companies. It plans to attract more deposits, which are typically the cheapest way to fund a bank. It has hired an army of tech experts. All this, Goldman hopes, will raise its return on tangible equity to 14%.

Goldman says it recognizes the need for fundamental reform. It boasts of transforming its macho culture with a more diverse intake of recruits. But you can question how much it has really changed. It continues to allocate half its capital to its once-famed trading operation, despite its drab returns. And it still spends a lavish $12bn a year on rewarding its staff, even as the firm earned only $8bn for its shareholders in 2019. If Goldman’s reinvention fails it may ultimately have to do a deal. Uniting Wells Fargo and Goldman, for example, would create something more like JPMorgan Chase.

The factors that lead to changes in Western banking are______.

In its prime Goldman Sachs was exceptional Fifteen years ago, just before the global financial crisis, the bank easily outshone its Wall Street rivals—winning the most lucrative deals and making the most profitable trades. It printed money, both for shareholders and employees. Although the crisis imperiled the firm along with the rest of the banking industry, it navigated the chaos relatively well. Success allowed it to be haughty—while other banks engaged in the grubby game of sucking up to investors, Goldman remained secretive and enigmatic.

How times have changed. This week the firm held its first investor day, led by David Solomon, who took over as chief executive last year. It comes after a long period of underperformance. A dollar invested in Goldman in 2010 would be worth just $1.60 today. A dollar wagered on JPMorgan Chase would be worth $4.10. Goldman has become a laggard.

Its predicament reflects two big changes in Western banking. One is the declining profitability of capital-markets activity, in large part the result of tighter rules, including higher capital requirements for riskier activity, penalties on lenders that rely on debt markets to fund themselves and tighter compliance regimes. The second is the rising importance of technology in the industry, as consumers and corporate borrowers shift to digital banking. This appears to give an immediate advantage to very large lenders that can support huge IT budgets, and to big tech platform firms that have vast numbers of customers who can be sold financial products, as is already the case in much of Asia.

Goldman has been on the wrong side of these trends. Mr Solomon’s new plan is, in part, to become more like JPMorgan Chase, with a broader range of services and funding. Goldman wants to expand Marcus, its fast-growing consumer arm, and also to build out its transaction-banking division that ships money around the world for companies. It plans to attract more deposits, which are typically the cheapest way to fund a bank. It has hired an army of tech experts. All this, Goldman hopes, will raise its return on tangible equity to 14%.

Goldman says it recognizes the need for fundamental reform. It boasts of transforming its macho culture with a more diverse intake of recruits. But you can question how much it has really changed. It continues to allocate half its capital to its once-famed trading operation, despite its drab returns. And it still spends a lavish $12bn a year on rewarding its staff, even as the firm earned only $8bn for its shareholders in 2019. If Goldman’s reinvention fails it may ultimately have to do a deal. Uniting Wells Fargo and Goldman, for example, would create something more like JPMorgan Chase.

In what way does Goldman’s new plan make it more like JPMorgan Chase?

In its prime Goldman Sachs was exceptional Fifteen years ago, just before the global financial crisis, the bank easily outshone its Wall Street rivals—winning the most lucrative deals and making the most profitable trades. It printed money, both for shareholders and employees. Although the crisis imperiled the firm along with the rest of the banking industry, it navigated the chaos relatively well. Success allowed it to be haughty—while other banks engaged in the grubby game of sucking up to investors, Goldman remained secretive and enigmatic.

How times have changed. This week the firm held its first investor day, led by David Solomon, who took over as chief executive last year. It comes after a long period of underperformance. A dollar invested in Goldman in 2010 would be worth just $1.60 today. A dollar wagered on JPMorgan Chase would be worth $4.10. Goldman has become a laggard.

Its predicament reflects two big changes in Western banking. One is the declining profitability of capital-markets activity, in large part the result of tighter rules, including higher capital requirements for riskier activity, penalties on lenders that rely on debt markets to fund themselves and tighter compliance regimes. The second is the rising importance of technology in the industry, as consumers and corporate borrowers shift to digital banking. This appears to give an immediate advantage to very large lenders that can support huge IT budgets, and to big tech platform firms that have vast numbers of customers who can be sold financial products, as is already the case in much of Asia.

Goldman has been on the wrong side of these trends. Mr Solomon’s new plan is, in part, to become more like JPMorgan Chase, with a broader range of services and funding. Goldman wants to expand Marcus, its fast-growing consumer arm, and also to build out its transaction-banking division that ships money around the world for companies. It plans to attract more deposits, which are typically the cheapest way to fund a bank. It has hired an army of tech experts. All this, Goldman hopes, will raise its return on tangible equity to 14%.

Goldman says it recognizes the need for fundamental reform. It boasts of transforming its macho culture with a more diverse intake of recruits. But you can question how much it has really changed. It continues to allocate half its capital to its once-famed trading operation, despite its drab returns. And it still spends a lavish $12bn a year on rewarding its staff, even as the firm earned only $8bn for its shareholders in 2019. If Goldman’s reinvention fails it may ultimately have to do a deal. Uniting Wells Fargo and Goldman, for example, would create something more like JPMorgan Chase.

Which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 5?

In its prime Goldman Sachs was exceptional Fifteen years ago, just before the global financial crisis, the bank easily outshone its Wall Street rivals—winning the most lucrative deals and making the most profitable trades. It printed money, both for shareholders and employees. Although the crisis imperiled the firm along with the rest of the banking industry, it navigated the chaos relatively well. Success allowed it to be haughty—while other banks engaged in the grubby game of sucking up to investors, Goldman remained secretive and enigmatic.

How times have changed. This week the firm held its first investor day, led by David Solomon, who took over as chief executive last year. It comes after a long period of underperformance. A dollar invested in Goldman in 2010 would be worth just $1.60 today. A dollar wagered on JPMorgan Chase would be worth $4.10. Goldman has become a laggard.

Its predicament reflects two big changes in Western banking. One is the declining profitability of capital-markets activity, in large part the result of tighter rules, including higher capital requirements for riskier activity, penalties on lenders that rely on debt markets to fund themselves and tighter compliance regimes. The second is the rising importance of technology in the industry, as consumers and corporate borrowers shift to digital banking. This appears to give an immediate advantage to very large lenders that can support huge IT budgets, and to big tech platform firms that have vast numbers of customers who can be sold financial products, as is already the case in much of Asia.

Goldman has been on the wrong side of these trends. Mr Solomon’s new plan is, in part, to become more like JPMorgan Chase, with a broader range of services and funding. Goldman wants to expand Marcus, its fast-growing consumer arm, and also to build out its transaction-banking division that ships money around the world for companies. It plans to attract more deposits, which are typically the cheapest way to fund a bank. It has hired an army of tech experts. All this, Goldman hopes, will raise its return on tangible equity to 14%.

Goldman says it recognizes the need for fundamental reform. It boasts of transforming its macho culture with a more diverse intake of recruits. But you can question how much it has really changed. It continues to allocate half its capital to its once-famed trading operation, despite its drab returns. And it still spends a lavish $12bn a year on rewarding its staff, even as the firm earned only $8bn for its shareholders in 2019. If Goldman’s reinvention fails it may ultimately have to do a deal. Uniting Wells Fargo and Goldman, for example, would create something more like JPMorgan Chase.

The author’s attitude toward Goldman Sachs’s reform may be______.

The supreme court has often been a friendly forum for Donald Trump’s administration when its immigration policies have foundered in the lower courts. In 2018, the justices blessed the third iteration of Mr Trump’s ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. The next year they allowed the president to move forward with asylum restrictions and to divert federal money for a wall on the Mexican border. On January 27th the Supreme Court voted to permit a new wealth test for green-card applicants while litigation on the matter continues.

The latest decision, like two of the other three, split the justices 5-4. For 130 years the government could deny permanent legal status to immigrants at risk of becoming a "public charge". But a rule that originally barred only a handful of destitute immigrants could, under the revision announced last August, rope out hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Those who are deemed likely to need food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance over 12 of the next 36 months—after considering family size, English proficiency, credit score and income, among other factors—would be ineligible for a green card.

Before the Trump administration could implement the change on October 15th, it was blocked in a federal district court in New York. The move has "absolutely no support in the history of US immigration law", Judge George Daniels wrote, and is "repugnant to the American dream".

After an appeals court allowed Judge Daniels’s injunction to stand, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court granted the request without comment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed frustration with the phenomenon of district judges issuing injunctions that apply universally across the country.

These injunctions "share the same basic flaw", in Justice Gorsuch’s eyes, in that they dictate how the government must treat people "who are not parties to the case". Judicial interventions that have an impact on everyone from coast to coast affected by a government programme are "patently unworkable" and sow chaos, Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee argued. He also characterised them as "a sign of our impatient times".

Howard Wassermann, a law professor at Florida International University, agrees with Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning but wonders why he chose this moment to attack universal injunctions. Justice Gorsuch probably would have opposed even a narrower injunction, Mr Wasserman reckons.

The approval of Mr Trump’s ban in Paragraph 1 indicates that______.

The supreme court has often been a friendly forum for Donald Trump’s administration when its immigration policies have foundered in the lower courts. In 2018, the justices blessed the third iteration of Mr Trump’s ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. The next year they allowed the president to move forward with asylum restrictions and to divert federal money for a wall on the Mexican border. On January 27th the Supreme Court voted to permit a new wealth test for green-card applicants while litigation on the matter continues.

The latest decision, like two of the other three, split the justices 5-4. For 130 years the government could deny permanent legal status to immigrants at risk of becoming a "public charge". But a rule that originally barred only a handful of destitute immigrants could, under the revision announced last August, rope out hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Those who are deemed likely to need food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance over 12 of the next 36 months—after considering family size, English proficiency, credit score and income, among other factors—would be ineligible for a green card.

Before the Trump administration could implement the change on October 15th, it was blocked in a federal district court in New York. The move has "absolutely no support in the history of US immigration law", Judge George Daniels wrote, and is "repugnant to the American dream".

After an appeals court allowed Judge Daniels’s injunction to stand, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court granted the request without comment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed frustration with the phenomenon of district judges issuing injunctions that apply universally across the country.

These injunctions "share the same basic flaw", in Justice Gorsuch’s eyes, in that they dictate how the government must treat people "who are not parties to the case". Judicial interventions that have an impact on everyone from coast to coast affected by a government programme are "patently unworkable" and sow chaos, Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee argued. He also characterised them as "a sign of our impatient times".

Howard Wassermann, a law professor at Florida International University, agrees with Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning but wonders why he chose this moment to attack universal injunctions. Justice Gorsuch probably would have opposed even a narrower injunction, Mr Wasserman reckons.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that______.

The supreme court has often been a friendly forum for Donald Trump’s administration when its immigration policies have foundered in the lower courts. In 2018, the justices blessed the third iteration of Mr Trump’s ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. The next year they allowed the president to move forward with asylum restrictions and to divert federal money for a wall on the Mexican border. On January 27th the Supreme Court voted to permit a new wealth test for green-card applicants while litigation on the matter continues.

The latest decision, like two of the other three, split the justices 5-4. For 130 years the government could deny permanent legal status to immigrants at risk of becoming a "public charge". But a rule that originally barred only a handful of destitute immigrants could, under the revision announced last August, rope out hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Those who are deemed likely to need food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance over 12 of the next 36 months—after considering family size, English proficiency, credit score and income, among other factors—would be ineligible for a green card.

Before the Trump administration could implement the change on October 15th, it was blocked in a federal district court in New York. The move has "absolutely no support in the history of US immigration law", Judge George Daniels wrote, and is "repugnant to the American dream".

After an appeals court allowed Judge Daniels’s injunction to stand, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court granted the request without comment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed frustration with the phenomenon of district judges issuing injunctions that apply universally across the country.

These injunctions "share the same basic flaw", in Justice Gorsuch’s eyes, in that they dictate how the government must treat people "who are not parties to the case". Judicial interventions that have an impact on everyone from coast to coast affected by a government programme are "patently unworkable" and sow chaos, Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee argued. He also characterised them as "a sign of our impatient times".

Howard Wassermann, a law professor at Florida International University, agrees with Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning but wonders why he chose this moment to attack universal injunctions. Justice Gorsuch probably would have opposed even a narrower injunction, Mr Wasserman reckons.

According to Justice Neil Gorsuch, Judge George Daniels’s injunction______.

The supreme court has often been a friendly forum for Donald Trump’s administration when its immigration policies have foundered in the lower courts. In 2018, the justices blessed the third iteration of Mr Trump’s ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. The next year they allowed the president to move forward with asylum restrictions and to divert federal money for a wall on the Mexican border. On January 27th the Supreme Court voted to permit a new wealth test for green-card applicants while litigation on the matter continues.

The latest decision, like two of the other three, split the justices 5-4. For 130 years the government could deny permanent legal status to immigrants at risk of becoming a "public charge". But a rule that originally barred only a handful of destitute immigrants could, under the revision announced last August, rope out hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Those who are deemed likely to need food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance over 12 of the next 36 months—after considering family size, English proficiency, credit score and income, among other factors—would be ineligible for a green card.

Before the Trump administration could implement the change on October 15th, it was blocked in a federal district court in New York. The move has "absolutely no support in the history of US immigration law", Judge George Daniels wrote, and is "repugnant to the American dream".

After an appeals court allowed Judge Daniels’s injunction to stand, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court granted the request without comment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed frustration with the phenomenon of district judges issuing injunctions that apply universally across the country.

These injunctions "share the same basic flaw", in Justice Gorsuch’s eyes, in that they dictate how the government must treat people "who are not parties to the case". Judicial interventions that have an impact on everyone from coast to coast affected by a government programme are "patently unworkable" and sow chaos, Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee argued. He also characterised them as "a sign of our impatient times".

Howard Wassermann, a law professor at Florida International University, agrees with Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning but wonders why he chose this moment to attack universal injunctions. Justice Gorsuch probably would have opposed even a narrower injunction, Mr Wasserman reckons.

It can be learned from the last Paragraph that professor Howard Wasserman questions______.

The supreme court has often been a friendly forum for Donald Trump’s administration when its immigration policies have foundered in the lower courts. In 2018, the justices blessed the third iteration of Mr Trump’s ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. The next year they allowed the president to move forward with asylum restrictions and to divert federal money for a wall on the Mexican border. On January 27th the Supreme Court voted to permit a new wealth test for green-card applicants while litigation on the matter continues.

The latest decision, like two of the other three, split the justices 5-4. For 130 years the government could deny permanent legal status to immigrants at risk of becoming a "public charge". But a rule that originally barred only a handful of destitute immigrants could, under the revision announced last August, rope out hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Those who are deemed likely to need food stamps, Medicaid or housing assistance over 12 of the next 36 months—after considering family size, English proficiency, credit score and income, among other factors—would be ineligible for a green card.

Before the Trump administration could implement the change on October 15th, it was blocked in a federal district court in New York. The move has "absolutely no support in the history of US immigration law", Judge George Daniels wrote, and is "repugnant to the American dream".

After an appeals court allowed Judge Daniels’s injunction to stand, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in. The court granted the request without comment. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed frustration with the phenomenon of district judges issuing injunctions that apply universally across the country.

These injunctions "share the same basic flaw", in Justice Gorsuch’s eyes, in that they dictate how the government must treat people "who are not parties to the case". Judicial interventions that have an impact on everyone from coast to coast affected by a government programme are "patently unworkable" and sow chaos, Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee argued. He also characterised them as "a sign of our impatient times".

Howard Wassermann, a law professor at Florida International University, agrees with Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning but wonders why he chose this moment to attack universal injunctions. Justice Gorsuch probably would have opposed even a narrower injunction, Mr Wasserman reckons.

Which of the following is true of the text?