This document is for internal recruiting purposes. Any distribution or copying of this document is prohibited.

Hello!

Below is the assignment we want you to take.

Feel free to reach out to us on email if you have any questions.

Hope you have fun doing it!

DailyBrief Team

1) Critique the given article.

The below article has mistakes and bad/wrong sentence structure in many places, perhaps. Please critique it and point
out the mistakes, if any. Whatever goes through your head while reading the article, write that down. Take us into your
head, we should be able to understand your thought process. There’s a sample critique below the article to help you
out. Please re-write the article with the corrections once you are done.

------Assignment Article Begins-----

Kejriwal claims “Third Wave” in National Capital, taking strict action

As fresh cases spike in the NCR region, CM Arvind Kejriwal assured the populace, stating ‘close monitoring’ and ‘strict
actions’. On Tuesday, Delhi recorded over 6,000 fresh cases for the first time.

Kejriwal has assured the availability of adequate beds, while claiming swift action to be taken for shortages ventilator
and beds in private hospitals in the coming days.

While Covid-19 recoveries have moved past 92 per cent in total cases across India, active cases remain below 6 lakhs for
the 6th day. 16 states have reported lower cases per million than national avg. of 6,025.

------Assignment Article Ends----

Article for Sample critique:

Bitcoin: $1bn seized from Silk Road account by US government

The US Dept. of Justice recently seized approx. $1bn(£772m) in Bitcoin linked to the online black market on the Dark
Web. Their officials had noticed a movement of 70,000 bitcoins between accounts linked to the market place.

Silk Road was a hidden, internet site which was used to sell illegal good like drugs, stolen credit cards, hit-jobs and other

1
nefarious deals. All this led to it’s closure by the US govt. in 2013. This is the largest sum of crypto-currency seized to
date by them.

In 2015, Silk Road’s founder was successfully prosecuted, leading to a world wide goose chase for the money
they trafficked. This $1bn sum is part of that effort.

Sample Critique:

1st paragraph - The first sentence does not say what the online black market is. It should read ‘Silk Road – the online
black market‘. Marketplace should be one word. Plural of bitcoin is bitcoin, although bitcoins has become accepted in
common parlance now.

2nd paragraph - ‘Hidden’ and ‘internet’ should not have a comma between them. ‘That’ should be used instead of
‘which’. ‘Goods’ instead of ‘good’. The latter half of the sentence is incorrect – hit jobs and nefarious deals are not illegal
goods and can’t be combined with drugs and stolen credit cards like this. A better framing would be sell illegal goods
and carry out hitjobs and other nefarious deals. Its instead of it’s

3rd paragraph – World wide goose chase is wrong, there’s no such phrase. The writer has mashed together wild goose
chase and worldwide chase. Worldwide chase is the correct term here.

- -Sample Ends -

2) Write a brief of the article given below:

A new UN fund for “loss and damage” emerges from COP27 [Available on Page 4 of this document or
thereabouts]

The idea is to write a crisp and concise brief which explains to the reader the author’s key points without them
having to read the full-length original. The question you have to ask yourself is – if I were to quickly tell a friend
about this article, what would be the key points I would tell them to give them an accurate sense of the article?
That’s what we’re looking for. Write those down.

The brief should:

● cover the key points of the article

● be simple, something a layman can understand.
● be about 200-250 words.
● have a structure that makes it highly readable and enjoyable as a standalone piece.

PLEASE DO NOT COPY PASTE SENTENCES OR PARTS OF SENTENCES FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. USE YOUR OWN
WORDS. PARAPHRASE.

An example of a good brief is on the next page of this document. I’d encourage you to read the original article and

2
 the brief example before attempting the assignment.

Example of a good brief:

The Tricky Math of Herd Immunity for Covid-19

https://www.wired.com/story/the-tricky-math-of-herd-immunity-for-covid-19/

Brief

Herd immunity is achieved when enough of the population has developed immunity to the virus that prevents
it from spreading.

• The threshold at which it is achieved can be calculated by a simple formula: 1 − 1/R0, where R0 is the
average number of people infected by a carrier.
The caveats:
• Usually, herd immunity is discussed in the context of vaccine campaigns where everyone is assumedto
contract and spread the infection equally. This may not be the case for COVID-19.
• Immunity development and R0 can vary largely with social, local, and biological differences - called
‘heterogeneity of susceptibility.’
• Heterogeneity lowers the threshold of herd immunity. The virus attacks vulnerable people first but to
continue spreading it must move on to those who are less susceptible, thereby slowing the spread.
What they're saying:
• Estimates by experts for the herd immunity threshold range from 60% of the population to as lowas
20% - suggesting that some hotspots like NYC may have already achieved some of it.
• While hard to estimate, more could be done to determine heterogeneity, which is crucial for this
calculation. Variations in Ro, inconsistent social distancing add to the trouble.
The bottomline: There’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding naturally acquired herd immunity. It's
best achieved through a vaccine, and we need to prevent new cases until one is found.

3
 A new UN fund for “loss and damage”
emerges from COP27
Source: The Economist

The annual un climate talks are often compared to a circus or a battleground. This year’s summit, held at the Egyptian
resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, was particularly shambolic and grumpy. Even the supply of food for delegates was fitful
initially.

The talks had been due to finish on November 18th. By the wee hours of November 20th, they were still going. In the end,
it was sleep deprivation and weariness, more than any grand political breakthrough, that forced a result.
The final text, as at previous summits, was inadequate to the challenge. But the talks—known in the jargon as cop27—seem
to have tipped the balance of debate on two important points. The first is that, after three decades of ignoring them, rich
countries are beginning to give a more sympathetic hearing to demands from poorer ones for money to help them repair
the damages wreaked by a warming world. The second is the idea that taking climate change seriously will require
tinkering with the global financial system. Once a niche idea, it too is gathering momentum.

Start with the compensation claims. The idea of a “loss and damage” fund was first floated in 1991 when Vanuatu, a
low-lying island nation in the Pacific, suggested the creation of an insurance scheme, under the auspices of the un, to help
pay for the consequences of rising sea levels. For thirty years such demands were rebuffed. Leaders of rich countries, and
their lawyers, would not give any airtime to anything that might suggest liability for climate change.

But twelve months ago in Scotland, that country’s first minister promised £2m ($2.4m) to the cause. Against the scale of
the problem, of course, that is a comically derisory sum. But it was a first hint that the tide might be turning. Earlier this
year, unusually heavy monsoon rains caused more than $30bn of damage and financial losses in Pakistan, equivalent to
nearly 9% of the country’s gdp. Natural climatic variations, notably an ocean-cooling phenomenon known as “La Niña,”
were partly responsible. But the rains were also made heavier by the effects of greenhouse gases.

The floods were seized upon by delegates at cop27 as demonstrating the need for rich countries to loosen their
purse-strings. A scattering of promises made by other European governments on the sidelines at Sharm el-Sheikh brought
the total to a still-paltry €255m ($262m). Most of the money—€170m—was pledged by Germany. There was more to come
from the main event. Bolstered by support from the European Union, the g77 group of developing nations obtained a
promise from delegates to set up a new UN fund, the details of which will be agreed by November next year. In other
words, the summit created a coffer, but it is not yet clear how much cash donors will cough up to fill it.

There was plenty of squabbling over who would benefit. The eu wants most of the money to go to “particularly vulnerable”
countries rather than developing ones, which under the outdated definitions of the un climate convention include such
notably non-poor places as China and Singapore. (Singaporeans are more than twice as rich as citizens of the eu.) The
question of who would pay also ruffled feathers. Again the eu needled China, now the world’s biggest emitter of
greenhouse gases, as the bloc sought a donor base that extended beyond the usual group of rich nations. Decisions made
now “must take into account the economic situation of countries in 2022 and not in 1992”, said Frans Timmermans, the
eu’s chief negotiator.

To some extent, all this is immaterial. Few believe that a un-sponsored “loss and damage” fund will ever transfer the
hundreds of billions that would be needed to offset the damage done by climate change. That is tacitly acknowledged in the
cop27 text itself, which drops several hints that money for loss and damage could be found in what Mr Timmermans called
a “mosaic” of sources in existing global, regional and national financial institutions.

With that in mind, the conference seized on a set of proposals by the Barbadian prime minister Mia Mottley. Known as the
Bridgetown Initiative, after the capital city of the Caribbean nation, the idea is to overhaul the system of international
financial institutions—chiefly the International Monetary Fund (imf) and the World Bank. The proposal most likely to
succeed is to expand the lending capacity of the World Bank, and other development banks, by allowing them to take
greater financial risks. Advocates hope an additional $1trn could be unlocked without any shareholders (America is the

4
largest for the World Bank) having to put in any more money. The extra financial risk is justified, advocates say, when set
against the harm that climate change will cause.

Such ideas were starting to gain traction before they popped up in Sharm el-Sheikh. In July a report commissioned by the
g20, a club of rich-ish countries, called for changes to the rules governing multilateral development banks, such as relying
less on the opinions of credit-rating agencies when deciding whether to make a loan. American officials already seem
frustrated at the World Bank’s lack of urgency over climate change. In October Janet Yellen, America’s Treasury secretary,
said that the lender should find ways to “stretch” its balance sheet and asked the World Bank to come up with a way to do
so by December.

More controversial is a proposal to set up a new Global Climate Mitigation Trust at the imf, the international lender of last
resort. Ms Mottley’s suggestion is that a $500bn issue of special drawing rights (sdrs), a kind of quasi-currency created by
the fund, could be used to capitalise this new operation. That funding would then be combined with money raised from
private investors. The trust would then lend at an attractive rate to projects in poor countries that reduce emissions. Again,
this proposal would not require any further commitments from the imf’s biggest shareholders depending, as it does, on
creating new money.

It may still struggle. sdr issuance has been historically rare, reserved for moments of acute financial crisis rather than for
chronic challenges like climate change. While a new round of sdrs would not need congressional support, it would require
the approval of the us Treasury and Ms Yellen, in October, said now was not the time for further issuance. There is some
scope for redirecting existing sdrs: during the pandemic rich countries pledged $100bn of sdrs issued to a Resilience and
Sustainability Trust, but so far only about $80bn has arrived.
Even so, Mrs Mottley’s Initiative has won support from France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, who said in his address to
cop27 that he had called on the imf, World Bank and the oecd to propose new ways of channelling funding to poor
countries by spring 2023. He suggested that the World Bank and imf needed new rules to grapple with climate change,
which could include forms of debt relief that would suspend payments in the event of a climate-related disaster.

The closing text adopted at cop27 called on multilateral development banks and other international financial institutions
to “reform their practices and priorities” to channel money where it is most needed. It also encouraged such organisations
to “define a new vision” with “channels and instruments that are fit for the purpose of adequately addressing the global
climate emergency”. Though they were not mentioned specifically, this language nods towards some increasingly popular
financial wheezes, such as “debt for nature swaps” that offer poor countries debt relief in exchange for committing to
conservation.

The discord, as ever, was in the details. Poorer countries always ask for more money at climate summits. This year they
sounded even angrier than usual. The rich world’s failure to disburse the annual $100bn of climate finance promised at the
Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 amounted to an “egregious and unexplained default”, said William Ruto, Kenya’s
president. (No more than $83bn has arrived in any single year.) Mr Ruto’s choice of words, casting the rich world as a
recalcitrant debtor, was deliberate. Rich countries often chide poor-country governments for failing to pay their debts, and
donors have often criticised Kenya’s ruling class for stealing money intended for noble purposes.

The tussle for money takes place as rich-country taxpayers are feeling squeezed, thanks to inflation and the after-effects of
covid-19. Yet the situation in poor countries is much worse: national debt burdens ballooned during the pandemic, and
this will make it harder to tackle climate change.

Mitigation will require huge investments, not only in renewables but in building electricity grids and providing farmers
with alternatives to chopping down rainforests. Adapting to a warmer planet will require vast sums for building flood
defences and heat-proofing infrastructure. Making economies more resilient in this way will cost more than $200bn a year
by 2030, by one estimate. This money must somehow be found even as a strong dollar and soaring bills for imported food
and energy threaten to spark a new emerging-market debt crisis.

Loss and damage from climate-related disasters can drive poorer countries even deeper into debt, as Pakistan discovered
this year. Without access to affordable insurance against such risks, Caribbean and Pacific island states have to borrow
when a catastrophe hits and try to repay the money when times are good. By one estimate, countries that are at higher risk
of natural disasters already have debt-to-national income ratios that are 11.2 percentage points higher than those which

5
are less vulnerable. That will only rise as droughts, floods and storms become more common, severe or both.
Mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage are inextricably linked. Faster, more ambitious decarbonisation will reduce
the bill for adaptation. Better mitigation and adaptation will mean that less money has to be spent rebuilding after
disasters. But the negotiations that unfolded in Sharm el-Sheikh were proof that the world has not yet worked out how to
tackle all three simultaneously.

After the final decision had been gavelled through, Alok Sharma—the British president of last year’s climate talks—hailed
the creation of a loss and damage fund but regretted that more had not been accomplished: “Emissions peaking before
2025…Not in this text. Clear follow-through on the phase down of coal: not in this text. A clear commitment to phase out
all fossil fuels: not in this text.”