Statements Some drugs are medicines. No medicine is a treatment. Conclusions I. All treatments being drugs is a possibility. II. All drugs can never be treatments. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statements Some drugs are medicines. No medicine is a treatment. Conclusions I. All treatments being drugs is a possibility. II. All drugs can never be treatments.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->…………….means the annual financial statements and other statements prescribed under Rule 65 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Accounts) Rules, 2011?....

QA->Never, Never Land....

QA->What is known as Never Never land ?....

QA->Statements of affairs method is called or known as _____ method.....

QA->Consider a Program Graph (PG) with statements as nodes and control as edges. Which of the following is not true for any PG?....

MCQ->Statements Some drugs are medicines. No medicine is a treatment. Conclusions I. All treatments being drugs is a possibility. II. All drugs can never be treatments.....

MCQ-> Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.Bertrand Russell in The Conquest of Happiness has said that the sole reason of unhappiness finding refuge in the heart of man is the unhindered growth of “self- centred passions”. These passions are more often materialistic. And in the pursuit of materialistic passions, man becomes alienated from the society. Failure in his pursuit often leads him to discontentment and dejection and he finds himself a misfit in this world. In the modern world, none is unaffected by stress. The stress to outdo the other in this mad rat race of consumerism often leads to depression.Even children are not spared from this. They are supposed to fare better than their classmates in examinations and other co-curricular activities. So man, right from childhood, has to face the brunt of being born in this fast changing society. A section of the youth, unable to cope with the expectations of their loved ones, either end their lives or experiment with drugs, for seeking temporary mental relaxation provided by the initial intake, encourages people to indulge in them more often. The body then becomes totally dependent on drugs and cannot survive without the daily dose. With regular intake the amount required to produce the effect also increases. This physical and mental dependence on drugs is called drug addiction. Drug addiction is a psychiatric, psychological and social problem. While persons of all ages and at all places are open to drug use the most susceptible among them are the youth. It has attained the proportions of almost an epidemic among the youth. It is mostly introduced to an unsuspecting person by his friends and is usually observed that once addicted to drugs, they initiate others to drugs. Some youngsters take to drugs because they are poked fun as if they do not use drugs. And some take drugs just to seek company or break boredom. In addition to these, other factors that lead to drug addiction are — lack of parental care and supervision, lack of moral and religious education, media and pop culture, broken homes, hatred for any authority, etc. Seeking refuge in drugs relieves tensions, eases depressions and removes inhibitions, although the period of ecstasy is apparently short-lived. Which of the following statements is true ?
....

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-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions.There is no field of human endeavour that has been so misunderstood as health, while health which connotes well-being and the absence of illness has a low profile; it is illness representing the failure of health which virtually monopolizes attention because of the fear of pain, disability and death. Even Sushruta has warned that this provides the medical practitioner power over the patient which could be misused. Till recently, patients had implicit faith in their physician that they loved and respected, not only for his knowledge but also in the total belief that practitioners of this noble profession, guided by ethics, always place the patient’s interest above all other considerations. This rich interpersonal relationship between the physician; patient and family has barred a few expectations prevailedtill the recent past, for caring was considered as important as curing. Our indigenous system of medicine like ayurveda and yoga have been more concerned with the promotion of the health of both the body and mind and with maintaining a harmonious relationship not just with fellow being but with nature itself, of which man is an integral part. Health practices like cleanliness proper diet exercise and meditation are part of our culture which sustains people in the prevailing conditions of poverty in rural India and in the unhygienic urban slums. These systems consider disease as an aberration resulting from disturbance of the equilibrium of health which must be corrected by gentle restoration of this balance through proper diet, medicines and the establishment of mental peace. They also teach the graceful acceptance of old age with its infirmities resulting from the normal degenerative process as well as if death which is inevitable. This is in marked contrast to the western concept of life as a constant struggle against disease aging and death which must be fought and conquered with the knowledge and technology derived from their science; a science which with its narrow dissective and quantifying approach has provided us the understanding of the microbial causes of the communicable disease and provided highly effective technology for their prevention, treatment and control. This can rightly be claimed as the greatest contribution of western medicine and justifiably termed as ‘high technology. And yet the contribution of this science in the field of noncommunicable disease is remarkably poor despite the far greater inputs in research and treatment for the problem of aging like cancer, heart disesase, paralytic strokes and arthritis which are the major problems of affluent societies today.Which of the following has been described as the most outstanding benefit of modern medicine ? (A) The real course and ways of control of communicable diseases. (B) Evolution of the concept of harmony between man and nature. (C) Special techniques for fighting aging.....

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?
....