In each of following questions have the respective statements and related conclusions .you have to take given statement is as correct and answer the following questionsstatements Some fish are crocodiles Some crocodiles are snakes No snake is to ?->(Show Answer!)

1. In each of following questions have the respective statements and related conclusions .you have to take given statement is as correct and answer the following questionsstatements Some fish are crocodiles Some crocodiles are snakes No snake is tortoise All tortoises are frogs Conclusions: No snake is frog Some snakes are fish Some fish are frogs

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 01.29 am

The venn diagram for above statements is : Conclusions: No snake is frog = false
Some snakes are fish = false
Some fish are frogs = false Thus, none follows. => Ans - (A)

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Which of the following is a non vertebrate?(Snake, Fish, Cockroach, Frog)....

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

QA->I'm too busy today, I'll be glad to answer your questions on - - - - - - - occasion. ....

QA->I'm too busy today, I'll be……. to answer your questions on another occasion ....

QA->"Take care to get what you like, or you will be forced to like what you get"....

MCQ-> In each of following questions have the respective statements and related conclusions .you have to take given statement is as correct and answer the following questionsstatements Some fish are crocodiles Some crocodiles are snakes No snake is tortoise All tortoises are frogs Conclusions: No snake is frog Some snakes are fish Some fish are frogs....

MCQ-> Read the following story carefully and answer the questions given. Certain words/phrases have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Once there was a king who had been trying really hard to capture an elephant, but that prize had proved elusive. All the hunters in the kingdom had tried but their efforts were 'in vain'. So the king announced that anyone who could capture the elephant would get half his kingdom. The tortoise heard about this and went to the king to accept the challenge. The king was very amused. 'All my hunters have failed to capture the elephant and you think you can succeed ?', asked the king. The tortoise insisted that he was up to the task and promised to deliver that elephant to the king within forty eight hours. The tortoise then dug a big hole, big enough to hold the elephant along a path leading to the village. Then he covered the hole with sticks and leaves so that it was not visible unless inspected closely. When this was done, the tortoise went in search of the elephant. When the tortoise met the elephant, he told him, 'You know you are the largest animal in the forest and you should be a king ?' The elephant had never considered this before but he thought it was not a bad idea. The tortoise told the elephant that the villagers had decided to make the largest animal their king and were all expecting the elephant to come to the village and be crowned as their king. The more the elephant heard, the more excited he became. The tortoise adorned the elephant with colourful beads and beating a gong, he sang songs praising the elephant while he led the way to the village. Soon they approached the trap and the tortoise being lighter and smaller walked over the trap. The elephant who was following him fell through the sticks and leaves into the deep hole and thus helped the tortoise in achieving his goal well within the time limit.As mentioned in the story, despite the king doubting his ability, the tortoise accepted the challenge . A. he was forced to do so by the villagers. B. to prove to the king that only a tortoise and his family could complete the challenge. C. he wanted the entire kingdom to himself.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage: Rajendran belongs to the hula tribe, one of India's oldest indigenous communities, who live along the north-eastern coast of the state of Tamil Nadu. They are known for their ancient and intimate knowledge of snakes, and their skills form an important but nearly invisible part of the healthcare system in India. "Many people are scared of snakes," Rajendran said, "But we must remember that the snake is only interested in survival. If we move in agitation, the snake perceives a threat and can strike. If we stand still, however, it will often slither away." We were at the offices of the hula Snake Catchers Industrial Co-Operative Society, which was formed in 1978 in Vadanemmeli to capture snakes and extract their venom. Nearly 50,000 people die of snakebites each year in the country, and the only reliable treatment is the prompt administration of anti-venom. Six companies across India produce around 1.5 million vials of anti-venom annually, and most of it is derived from the venom extracted by the Indas. Rajendran showed us a sunken sandpit enclosed by a low brick wall A high thatched roof protected the space from the sun. and a small raised platform in the centre of the pit had a simple blackboard with details of the snakes being held in the facility. This was the venom extraction site. We aren't holding too many snakes right now," he said, pointing to the numerous rows of empty clay pots, neatly arranged outside the thatch structure. Each pot will be half-filled with sand before housing two snakes each, and the mouth of the pot will be carefully sealed with porous cotton cloth so that the snakes can't leave the pot but there is still enough air. The co-operative has official licenses to hold about 800 snakes at a time. "We keep every snake for 21 days, and extract venom four times during that period," Rajendran said. The snakes are then released into the wild. A small mark on their belly scales prevents the same snake from being caught repeatedly. "The mark goes away after a few moultings." Rajendran's confidence in handling snakes and his deep understanding of these creatures are derived from a childhood spent in the forests and scrublands of the region. Before he turned 10. he had seen hundreds of snakes being captured. The Imlas usually work in silence, even when they go into the forest with others. They instinctively know the significance of faint signs on the ground to either follow clues or dismiss them. However, they often find it hard to articulate the details of their understanding, even to people who study reptiles.What is the best way to save yourself when a snake is near you?
....

MCQ->Statements : Some fish are crocodiles. Some crocodiles are snakes. No snake is tortoise. All tortoises are frogs. Conclusions : I : No snake is frog. II : Some snakes are fish. III : Some fish are frogs.....

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?
....