The concept of rolling plan was accepted in? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The concept of rolling plan was accepted in?

Answer: 1977

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The concept of rolling plan was accepted in?....

QA->The concept of Rolling Plan was introduced by ?....

QA->The Rolling Plan concept in National Planningwas introduced by:....

QA->In India rolling plan was implemented by?....

QA->Which was the first country to adopt Rolling Plan?....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below :A word and number arrangement machine when given an input line of words and numbers rearranges them following a particular rule in each step. The following is an illustation of input and various steps of rearrangement. (All the numbers are two digit numbers).Input : plan more vacation 35 56 92 nice holiday tours 84 61 12Step I : 92 plan more vacation 35 56 nice tours 84 61 12 holiday Step II : 92 84 plan vacation 35 56 nice tours 61 12 more holiday Step III : 92 84 61 plan vacation 35 56 tours 12 nice more holiday Step IV : 92 84 61 56 vacation 35 tours 12 plan nice more holiday Step V : 92 84 61 56 35 vacation 12 tours plan nice more holiday Step VI : 92 84 61 56 35 12 vacation tours plan nice more holiday And Step VI is the last step of the rearrangement as the desired arrangement is obtained. As per rules followed in the above steps, find out in each of the questions the appropriate step for the given input. Input : hard work pays 96 42 in 79 long run 18 25 57Which step number is the following output? 96 79 57 42 work run 18 25 pays long in hard...

MCQ->Match the period of Five Year Plan Five Year Plan Period a) Third Five Year Plan 1. 2002-07 b) Seventh Five Year Plan 2. 2012-17 c) Nineth Five Year Plan 3. 1961-66 d) Twelfth Five Year Plan 4. 1985-90...

MCQ-> Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the follow. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.According to Popper, the statement "Scientific beliefs are universal in character" implies that...

MCQ->Pick out thể one word for - a secret arrangement...

MCQ->The rolling plan concept in India in the National Planning was introduced by?...