The offer is very good so its just can't be true ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The offer is very good so its just can't be true

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Which material is very hard and very ductile?....

QA->The old gentleman ____ to be a very good friend of my grandfather....

QA->Sam is very good ___ Mathematics.....

QA->Vitamin which is a very good Antioxidant?....

QA->Who said these words “Give us good mother and I shall give you good nation”?....

MCQ-> Answer question based on the following information:In the country of Gagan, air travellers can buy their tickets either directly from the airlines or from three websites that are licensed to offer ticketing services online. In Gagan most of the commercial transactions are done electronically, and all citizens have an account with its national bank CeeCee. As a result the three websites have become popular and each transaction through these websites carries a surcharge of Gs. 250 (Gs. refers to Guppes, currency of Gagan). Given below are four post new - year (January 2, 2011 to February 28, 2011) offers from three competing websites: Cozy _ travel Offer : Make a confirmed booking for any service (fight ticket, hotel or rail tickets) through Cozy_travel.com from December 5, 2010 to February 8, 2011 and become eligible for two free air tickets (offer is limited to the base fare). Free tickets have to be booked through online request from January 1, 2011 to February 28, 2011. The request for free tickets should be submitted at least twenty - one days in advance. Free tickets are non - amendable (expect the passenger name) and cannot be cancelled. Free ticket cannot be exchanged for cash or kind with anybody. Cozy_travel will try its best to secure the free ticket as per the request. However, ticket confirmation is subject to airline schedule and set availability in airlines selected and finalized by Cozy_travel from specific available airlines. Cool_yatra Offer : Book any air ticket of any airline on Cool_yatra.com on or after December 21, 2010 and get your next ticket free. Under this offer, only the base fare of free ticket will be refunded by Cool_Yatra.com. Customer will have to bear rest of the charges (other fees and surcharges). The value of base fare will be refunded to passenger on/after March 1 or fifteen days after completion of travel on free ticket (whichever is later). The free ticket can be booked only on Gaga Air flights. The free ticket must be booked within fifteen days of booking the original ticket and the travel date of free ticket must be fifteen days after the booking date of free ticket. There must be a seven day gap between the travel date of main/original ticket and the free ticket. The travel date of free ticket should be on or before February 28, 2011. The free ticket cannot be transferred. On cancellation of the original ticket(s), you no longer remain eligible for the free ticket(s).Easy_travel Cash Back Offer : Easy travel offers 25% cash back on all air ticket bookings between December 5, 2010 and February 28, 2011 using CeeCee net banking service or its debit/credit card. The cash back amount will be credited back to customers account within twenty - one days from making the transaction. Maximum cash back during the period is Gs. 400 per person per ticket and total amount that can be claimed by the customer is Gs. 2,400Ek Ke Sath Ek Offer from Easy_travel : Book an AirSpice ticket with Easy_travel using any credit/debit card, and get another ticket absolutely free. The free tickets will be issued on AirSpice on its entire network. The offer is valid for sale from January 11, 2011 to January 31, 2011. The free ticket must be booked at least fifteen days prior to the date of travel and need to be completed within the offer period. The promotion code for the free ticket will get activated only seven days after booking the main ticket. Easy_travel will charge a handling fee of Gs. 1000/- per person for any amendments made on main ticket. Cancellations of tickets purchased under this offer are not permitted. The free ticket obtained under this offer can not be exchanged for cash and cannot be re-routed.Which offer has got the maximum chance for becoming the most popular among the air travellers of Gagan during post new - year period? Among the following options, choose the best offer - explanation combination.
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Once upon a time, there lived a lion in a forest. A jackal, a crow and a wolf had developed friendship. They knew that the lion was the king of the forest and friendship with such a fierce creature would always help them. To meet their selfish ends, they started obeying and were always at the service of the lion. They didn’t have to make any efforts to search for their food, as the lion gave his leftover meals to them. Moreover, they became powerful as they were next to the king of the forest. One day, a camel, who came from some distant land, lost his way and entered the same forest where these friends lived. In the meantime, these three friends happened to pass the same way that the camel was wandering. When they saw the camel, they realized that he did not belong to their forest. The jackal suggested to his other two friends, “Let’s kill and eat him.” The wolf replied, “It is a big animal. We cannot kill him like this. I think, we should first inform our king about this camel.” The crow agreed with the wolf s idea. All of them went to meet the lion. On reaching the lion’s den, the jackal approached the lion and said, Your Majesty, an unknown camel has dared to enter your kingdom without your consent, Let’s kill him; he could make a nice meal.” The lion roared loudly on hearing this and said, ‘What are you saying ? The camel has come for refuge in ray kingdom. It is unethical to kill him. We should provide him the best shelter. Go and bring him to me,” All of them were dispirited to hear these words from the king. They unwillingly went to the camel and told him about the lion’s desire to meet him, The camel was scared about the strange offer. He thought that his end had come and in a little while he would become the lion’s meal. As he couldn’t even escape, he decided to meet the lion. The selfish friends escorted the camel to the lion’s den. The lion welcomed the camel warmly and assured him of a safe stay in the forest. The camel was totally amazed to hear the lion’s words. He happily started living with the jackal, the crow and the wolf. One day, when the lion was hunting for food, he had a struggle with a mighty elephant. The lion was badly injured in the struggle and became incapable of hunting for his food. Thus the lion had to sustain without food for days. Due to this, his friends too had to go hungry for days as they totally depended on the lion’s kill for their food. But the camel was satisfied grazing around in the forest. All the three friends were worried and discussed the matter among them, As the jackal, the crow and the wolf had set their evil eyes on the camel, they met once again and devised a plan to kill the camel. They went to the camel and said, “Dear Friend, you know our king has not eaten anything for many days now. He is unable to hunt due to his wounds and sickness. Under such circumstances, it becomes our duty to sacrifice ourselves to save the life of our king. Come with us, we will offer our bodies as food for him.” The camel didn’t understand their plan, but innocently nodded in favour of it. All of them approached the lion’s den. First of all, the crow came forward and said, “Your Majesty, I can’t see you like this. So please eat me.” The lion replied, “I would prefer to die than to perform such a sinful deed.” Then, the jackal came forward and said, “Your Majesty, crow’s body is too small for your appetite. I offer myself to you, as it is my duty to save your life.” The lion politely rejected the offer. As per the plan, now it was the wolf’s turn to offer himself to the king. So, the wolf came forward and said, “Your Majesty, jackal is quite small to gratify your hunger. I offer myself for this kind job, Please, kill me and appease your hunger.” But the Lion didn’t kill any of them. The camel, who was watching the whole scene felt reassured of his safety and also decided to go forward and complete the formality. He marched forward and said, “Your Majesty, why don’t you kill me ? You are my friend. Please allow me to offer you my body.” The lion found the offer quite appropriate as the camel himself had offered his body for food. The lion attacked the camel at once, ripped open his body and lore him into pieces. The lion and his friends feasted on the poor camel for days together.‘Why could the lion not hunt anymore ?
....

MCQ-> The persistent patterns in the way nations fight reflect their cultural and historical traditions and deeply rooted attitudes that collectively make up their strategic culture. These patterns provide insights that go beyond what can be learnt just by comparing armaments and divisions. In the Vietnam War, the strategic tradition of the United States called for forcing the enemy to fight a massed battle in an open area, where superior American weapons would prevail. The United States was trying to re-fight World War II in the jungles of Southeast Asia, against an enemy with no intention of doing so. Some British military historians describe the Asian way of war as one of indirect attacks, avoiding frontal attacks meant to overpower an opponent. This traces back to Asian history and geography: the great distances and harsh terrain have often made it difficult to execute the sort of open-field clashes allowed by the flat terrain and relatively compact size of Europe. A very different strategic tradition arose in Asia. The bow and arrow were metaphors for an Eastern way of war. By its nature, the arrow is an indirect weapon. Fired from a distance of hundreds of yards, it does not necessitate immediate physical contact with the enemy. Thus, it can be fired from hidden positions. When fired from behind a ridge, the barrage seems to come out of nowhere, taking the enemy by surprise. The tradition of this kind of fighting is captured in the classical strategic writings of the East. The 2,000 years' worth of Chinese writings on war constitutes the most subtle writings on the subject in any language. Not until Clausewitz, did the West produce a strategic theorist to match the sophistication of Sun-tzu, whose Art of War was written 2,300 years earlier. In Sun-tzu and other Chinese writings, the highest achievement of arms is to defeat an adversary without fighting. He wrote: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." Actual combat is just one among many means towards the goal of subduing an adversary. War contains too many surprises to be a first resort. It can lead to ruinous losses, as has been seen time and again. It can have the unwanted effect of inspiring heroic efforts in an enemy, as the United States learned in Vietnam, and as the Japanese found out after Pearl Harbor. Aware of the uncertainties of a military campaign, Sun-tzu advocated war only after the most thorough preparations. Even then it should be quick and clean. Ideally, the army is just an instrument to deal the final blow to an enemy already weakened by isolation, poor morale, and disunity. Ever since Sun-tzu, the Chinese have been seen as masters of subtlety who take measured actions to manipulate an adversary without his knowledge. The dividing line between war and peace can be obscure. Low-level violence often is the backdrop to a larger strategic campaign. The unwitting victim, focused on the day-to-day events, never realizes what's happening to him until it's too late. History holds many examples. The Viet Cong lured French and U.S. infantry deep into the jungle, weakening their morale over several years. The mobile army of the United States was designed to fight on the plains of Europe, where it could quickly move unhindered from one spot to the next. The jungle did more than make quick movement impossible; broken down into smaller units and scattered in isolated bases, US forces were deprived of the feeling of support and protection that ordinarily comes from being part of a big army. The isolation of U.S. troops in Vietnam was not just a logistical detail, something that could be overcome by, for instance, bringing in reinforcements by helicopter. In a big army reinforcements are readily available. It was Napoleon who realized the extraordinary effects on morale that come from being part of a larger formation. Just the knowledge of it lowers the soldier's fear and increases his aggressiveness. In the jungle and on isolated bases, this feeling was removed. The thick vegetation slowed down the reinforcements and made it difficult to find stranded units. Soldiers felt they were on their own. More important, by altering the way the war was fought, the Viet Cong stripped the United States of its belief in the inevitability of victory, as it had done to the French before them. Morale was high when these armies first went to Vietnam. Only after many years of debilitating and demoralizing fighting did Hanoi launch its decisive attacks, at Dienbienphu in 1954 and against Saigon in 1975. It should be recalled that in the final push to victory the North Vietnamese abandoned their jungle guerrilla tactics completely, committing their entire army of twenty divisions to pushing the South Vietnamese into collapse. This final battle, with the enemy's army all in one place, was the one that the United States had desperately wanted to fight in 1965. When it did come out into the open in 1975, Washington had already withdrawn its forces and there was no possibility of re-intervention. The Japanese early in World War II used a modern form of the indirect attack, one that relied on stealth and surprise for its effect. At Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, and in Southeast Asia, stealth and surprise were attained by sailing under radio silence so that the navy's movements could not be tracked. Moving troops aboard ships into Southeast Asia made it appear that the Japanese army was also "invisible." Attacks against Hawaii and Singapore seemed, to the American and British defenders, to come from nowhere. In Indonesia and the Philippines the Japanese attack was even faster than the German blitz against France in the West. The greatest military surprises in American history have all been in Asia. Surely there is something going on here beyond the purely technical difficulties of detecting enemy movements. Pearl Harbor, the Chinese intervention in Korea, and the Tet offensive in Vietnam all came out of a tradition of surprise and stealth. U.S. technical intelligence – the location of enemy units and their movements was greatly improved after each surprise, but with no noticeable improvement in the American ability to foresee or prepare what would happen next. There is a cultural divide here, not just a technical one. Even when it was possible to track an army with intelligence satellites, as when Iraq invaded Kuwait or when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel, surprise was achieved. The United States was stunned by Iraq's attack on Kuwait even though it had satellite pictures of Iraqi troops massing at the border. The exception that proves the point that cultural differences obscure the West's understanding of Asian behavior was the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. This was fully anticipated and understood in advance. There was no surprise because the United States understood Moscow's worldview and thinking. It could anticipate Soviet action almost as well as the Soviets themselves, because the Soviet Union was really a Western country. The difference between the Eastern and the Western way of war is striking. The West's great strategic writer, Clausewitz, linked war to politics, as did Sun-tzu. Both were opponents of militarism, of turning war over to the generals. But there all similarity ends. Clausewitz wrote that the way to achieve a larger political purpose is through destruction of the enemy's army. After observing Napoleon conquer Europe by smashing enemy armies to bits, Clausewitz made his famous remark in On War (1932) that combat is the continuation of politics by violent means. Morale and unity are important, but they should be harnessed for the ultimate battle. If the Eastern way of war is embodied by the stealthy archer, the metaphorical Western counterpart is the swordsman charging forward, seeking a decisive showdown, eager to administer the blow that will obliterate the enemy once and for all. In this view, war proceeds along a fixed course and occupies a finite extent of time, like a play in three acts with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The end, the final scene, decides the issue for good. When things don't work out quite this way, the Western military mind feels tremendous frustration. Sun-tzu's great disciples, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, are respected in Asia for their clever use of indirection and deception to achieve an advantage over stronger adversaries. But in the West their approach is seen as underhanded and devious. To the American strategic mind, the Viet Cong guerrilla did not fight fairly. He should have come out into the open and fought like a man, instead of hiding in the jungle and sneaking around like a cat in the night. According to the author, the main reason for the U.S. losing the Vietnam war was
....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....

MCQ-> My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract. In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of government. Rather, the idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice, I shall call justice as fairness. Thus, we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty determines the principles of justice.In ‘justice as fairness’, the original position is not an actual historical state of affairs. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.Justice as fairness begins with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions. Then, having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact laws, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. Moreover, assuming that the original position does determine a set of principles, it will then be true that whenever social institutions satisfy these principles, those engaged in them can say to one another that they are cooperating on terms to which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principles. The general recognition of this fact would provide the basis for a public acceptance of the corresponding principles of justice. No society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to being a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair.A just society, as conceptualized in the passage, can be best described as:
....