Total weight of kidney in human being

1. Total weight of kidney in human being –

Answer: 150 gm

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Total weight of kidney in human being –....

QA->The average weight of the kidney is about?....

QA->Vehicle weight when it is not loaded with passengers and cargo, but inclusive of the weight of full tank is known as :....

QA->A person who weight 120 kgs on earth will weight on the moon ?....

QA->WHAT IS THE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL UNITS OF HUMAN KIDNEY....

MCQ->Weight of Arun is 4/7 of the weight of Bablu. Weight of Bablu is 1/2 of the weight of Ram. Weight of Ram is 4 times of the weight of Deep. Weight of Deep is 1/9 of the weight of Ankit. Whose weight is more than the weight of Deep but less than the weight of Bablu?...

MCQ-> Read the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questionsThere is an essential and irreducible ‘duality’ in the normative conceptualization of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her ‘agency’, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her ‘well-being’. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self- interested motivation, in which a person’s agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the person’s agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of one’s agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting. To recognize the distinction between the ‘agency aspect’ and the ‘well-being aspect’ of a person does not require us to take the view that the person’s success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a person’s well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation. The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility - based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well- being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true expect:
...

MCQ->In a ‘keep-fit’ gymnasium class there are 15 females enrolled in a weight-loss programme. They all have been grouped in any one of the five weight-groups W1, W2, W3, W4, or W5. One instructor is assigned to one weight-group only.Sonali, Shalini, Shubhra and Shahira belong to the same weight-group. Sonali and Rupa are in one weight-group, Rupali and Renuka are also in one weight-group. Rupa, Radha, Renuka, Ruchika, and Ritu belong to different weight groups. Somya cannot be with Ritu, and Tara cannot be with Radha. Komal cannot be with Radha, Somya, or Ritu. Shahira is in W1 and Somya is in W4 with Ruchika. Sweta and Jyotika cannot be with Rupali, but are in a weight-group with total membership of four. No weight-group can have more than five or less than one member.Amita, Babita, Chandrika, Deepika and Elina are instructors of weight-groups with membership sizes 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Who is the instructor of Radha? ...

MCQ->Consider the following statements associated with the laws of weights in the theory of erros :1. If an equation is multiplied by its own weight, then the weight of the resulting equation is equal to the reciprocal of the weight of the equation.2. The weight of the algebraic sum of two or more quantities is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of the individual weights.3. If the quantity of a given weight is multiplied by a factor, then the weight of the result is obtained by dividing its given weight by the square root of that factor.4. If the quantity of a given weight is divided by a factor, then the weight of the result is obtained by multiplying its given weight by the square of that factor.Of these statements :...

MCQ-> The passage given below is followed by a set of three questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.The difficulties historians face in establishing cause-and-effect relations in the history of human societies are broadly similar to the difficulties facing astronomers, climatologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, geologists, and palaeontologists. To varying degrees each of these fields is plagued by the impossibility of performing replicated, controlled experimental interventions, the complexity arising from enormous numbers of variables, the resulting uniqueness of each system, the consequent impossibility of formulating universal laws, and the difficulties of predicting emergent properties and future behaviour. Prediction in history, as in other historical sciences, is most feasible on large spatial scales and over long times, when the unique features of millions of small-scale brief events become averaged out. Just as I could predict the sex ratio of the next 1,000 newborns but not the sexes of my own two children, the historian can recognize factors that made2 1 inevitable the broad outcome of the collision between American and Eurasian societies after 13,000 years of separate developments, but not the outcome of the 1960 U.S. presidential election. The details of which candidate said what during a single televised debate in October 1960 Could have given the electoral victory to Nixon instead of to Kennedy, but no details of who said what could have blocked the European conquest of Native Americans. How can students of human history profit from the experience of scientists in other historical sciences? A methodology that has proved useful involves the comparative method and so-called natural experiments. While neither astronomers studying galaxy formation nor human historians can manipulate their systems in controlled laboratory experiments, they both can take advantage of natural experiments, by comparing systems differing in the presence or absence (or in the strong or weak effect) of some putative causative factor. For example, epidemiologists, forbidden to feed large amounts of salt to people experimentally, have still been able to identify effects of high salt intake by comparing groups of humans who already differ greatly in their salt intake; and cultural anthropologists, unable to provide human groups experimentally with varying resource abundances for many centuries, still study long-term effects of resource abundance on human societies by comparing recent Polynesian populations living on islands differing naturally in resource abundance.The student of human history can draw on many more natural experiments than just comparisons among the five inhabited continents. Comparisons can also utilize large islands that have developed complex societies in a considerable degree of isolation (such as Japan, Madagascar, Native American Hispaniola, New Guinea, Hawaii, and many others), as well as societies on hundreds of smaller islands and regional societies within each of the continents. Natural experiments in any field, whether in ecology or human history, are inherently open to potential methodological criticisms. Those include confounding effects of natural variation in additional variables besides the one of interest, as well as problems in inferring chains of causation from observed correlations between variables. Such methodological problems have been discussed in great detail for some of the historical sciences. In particular, epidemiology, the science of drawing inferences about human diseases by comparing groups of people (often by retrospective historical studies), has for a long time successfully employed formalized procedures for dealing with problems similar to those facing historians of human societies. In short, I acknowledge that it is much more difficult to understand human history than to understand problems in fields of science where history is unimportant and where fewer individual variables operate. Nevertheless, successful methodologies for analyzing historical problems have been worked out in several fields. As a result, the histories of dinosaurs, nebulae, and glaciers are generally acknowledged to belong to fields of science rather than to the humanities.Why do islands with considerable degree of isolation provide valuable insights into human history?
...