Loading...
Practice - Banking Vocabulary
Quiz by Kyra Reyes
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
Banking Theory Law and PracticeGive me a quiz using these questions and answers Identify the underlined verbal. When my car broke down, I had to call the mechanic. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal The thrilled parents watched their child graduate as valedictorian. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal I love my mother’s cooking; it is simply divine. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal It is important for her to practice every single day. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal Sophia agreed to meet with me, but then she never showed up. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal Identify the infinitive in the following sentence: The students will hopefully be able to ride the roller coaster at Six Flags this weekend. To ride At Six Flags This weekend Hopefully be able Identify the underlined Verbal Phrase in the sentences: Using the kite string as an electrical conductor, Franklin captured a bit of lightning. Gerund Phrase Participial Phrase Infinitive Phrase None of the Above The electricity captured during his experiment was safely stored in a Leyden jar. Gerund Phrase Participial Phrase Infinitive Phrase None of the Above I’d give anything to have that kite now. Gerund Phrase Participial Phrase Infinitive Phrase None of the Above Identify the form of verbal used in the sentences: Kristen’s dream was singing in the local musical. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal My favorite Olympic competition is swimming. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal The barking dog jumped over the fence after a squirrel. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal The crying child rushed to his mother. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal The Joker came up with a terrifying plan. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a Verbal Doomsday was fighting Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Infinitive Gerund Participle Not a VerbalKey Word Definition
Aid Assistance in the form of grants or loans at below market rates. For example, the UK provided aid to Nepal after the 2015 earthquake to help with reconstruction efforts.
Barriers to Trade Government constraints on the flow of international goods and services, such as tariffs and quotas. For example, the European Union imposes tariffs on certain agricultural products to protect its farmers.
BRICS An acronym for an association of five major emerging nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. For example, BRICS nations often meet to discuss economic cooperation and development strategies.
Demographic Aging The rise in the median age of a population. For example, Japan is experiencing demographic aging, with a significant increase in the elderly population.
Economic Core Region The most highly developed region(s) in a country. For example, London is considered an economic core region in the UK due to its high level of development and economic activity.
GNP (Gross National Product) GDP plus overseas earnings, also known as GNI (Gross National Income). For example, the GNP of the United States includes the value of goods and services produced domestically and the income earned by its citizens abroad.
HIC (Higher Income Country) A country with a high level of income and development. For example, Germany is classified as a higher income country due to its high GDP per capita and advanced infrastructure.
NEE (Newly Emerging Economy) A country that is experiencing rapid economic growth and industrialisation. For example, China is an example of a newly emerging economy, having rapidly industrialised and grown economically over the past few decades.
LIC (Lower Income Country) A country with a low level of income and development. For example, Malawi is considered a lower income country, with a low GDP per capita and limited access to healthcare and education.
GDHI (Gross Disposable Household Income) The amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after taxes and social contributions. For example, in the UK, the GDHI varies significantly between regions, with London having one of the highest levels.
Gini Coefficient A measure of income inequality within a population, ranging from 0 (perfect equality) to 100 (perfect inequality). For example, South Africa has a high Gini coefficient, indicating significant income inequality within the country.
Trade Unions Organisations that promote trade between member countries, such as the East African Community (EAC). For example, the East African Community (EAC) works to promote economic integration and trade among its member states.
Fair Trade A movement aimed at helping producers in developing countries achieve better trading conditions and promote sustainability. For example, Fairtrade coffee ensures that farmers receive a fair price for their product and work under safe conditions.
FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) Investment made by a company or individual in one country in business interests in another country. For example, Toyota's investment in manufacturing plants in the UK is an example of foreign direct investment.
Debt Relief The partial or total remission of debts, especially those owed by developing countries to external creditors. For example, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative provides debt relief to eligible countries to help them achieve sustainable development.
International Aid Voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another, often in the form of financial assistance, goods, or services. For example, the UK provides international aid to various countries through its Department for International Development (DFID).
Top-Down Development Large-scale development projects led by national governments or international organisations. For example, the construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China is an example of a top-down development project.
Bottom-Up Development Small-scale development projects led by local communities or NGOs, focusing on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable. For example, WaterAid's installation of hand pumps in rural villages in Africa is an example of a bottom-up development project.
Urbanisation The increase in the proportion of people living in urban areas compared to rural areas. For example, rapid urbanisation in India has led to the growth of megacities like Mumbai and Delhi.
Geopolitics The study of the effects of geography (human and physical) on international politics and relations. For example, the geopolitics of the Arctic region involves disputes over territorial claims and access to natural resources.
Quality of Life The general well-being of individuals and societies, outlining negative and positive features of life. For example, Scandinavian countries are often ranked high in quality of life due to their strong social welfare systems and high levels of happiness.
Poverty Cycle A set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention. For example, lack of education and healthcare can trap families in a poverty cycle, making it difficult for future generations to improve their living standards.
Sustainable Development Economic development that is conducted without depletion of natural resources. For example, the use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power is a key aspect of sustainable development.
Humanitarian Aid Material or logistical assistance provided for humanitarian purposes, typically in response to crises including natural disasters and man-made disaster. For example, humanitarian aid was provided to Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010 to help with immediate relief efforts.
Economic Growth An increase in the production of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. For example, China's economic growth over the past few decades has lifted millions of people out of poverty.
Social Indicators Measures that describe the well-being of individuals or communities, such as health, education, and income. For example, life expectancy and literacy rates are common social indicators used to assess development.
Environmental Sustainability Responsible interaction with the environment to avoid depletion or degradation of natural resources and allow for long-term environmental quality. For example, practices like recycling and conservation of natural habitats contribute to environmental sustainability.
Infrastructure The basic physical and organisational structures and facilities needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. For example, good infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and schools, is essential for economic development.
Globalisation The process by which businesses or other organisations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. For example, the globalisation of technology companies like Apple and Google has led to their products being available worldwide.
Microfinance Financial services provided to low-income individuals or groups who are typically excluded from traditional banking. For example, microfinance institutions like Grameen Bank provide small loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries to help them start or expand their businesses.
“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.Practice110.31.b.17.C Topic: Reading/Vocabulary DevelopmentSTAAR English II High School 2014 - Past Paper