Improve the bracketed part of the sentence. Any bad habit must be nipped (on) the bud. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Improve the bracketed part of the sentence. Any bad habit must be nipped (on) the bud.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Finding fault ___ others is a bad habit....

QA->Any industry located in a rural area which produces any goods or renders any service with or without the use of power and in which the fixed capital investment per head of a worker does not exceed one lakh rupees is known as:....

QA->In which part of the sentence is the mistake? John(a)/has sold. (b)/his old (c)/furnitures (d) ....

QA->In which part of the sentence is the mistake? The few money (a)/he inherited (b)/has already (c)/been wasted(d) ....

QA->Who is the author of “Two leaves and a Bud”?....

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->Improve the bracketed part of the sentence. Any bad habit must be nipped (on) the bud.....

MCQ-> In the following questions, read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Over the past few days alone. the China’s central bank has pumped extra cash into the financial system and cut interest rates. The aim is to free more cash for banks to lend and provide a boost for banks seeking to improve the return on their assets. The official data though, suggested that bad loans make up only 1.4% of their balance sheets. How to explain the discrepancy? One possible answer is that bad loans are a tagging indicator i.e. it is only after the economy has struggled for while that borrowers began to suffer. Looked at this way, China is trying to anticipate problems keeping its banks in good health by susteining economic growth of nearly 7% year on year. Another more worrying possibility is that bad loans are worse than official data indicate. This does not look to be the cause for China’s biggest banks, which are managed conservatively and largely focus on the county’s biggest value and quality borrowers. But there is mounting evidence that when it comes to smaller banks, especially those yet to list on the stock market, bad loans piling up. That is important because unlisted lenders account for just over a third of the Chinese banking sector, making them as big as Japan’s entire banking industry. Although, non-performing loans have edged up slowly, the increase in specialmention loans (a category that includes those overdue but not yet classified as impaired loans.) has been much bigger. Special-mention loans are about 2% at most of China’s big listed banks, suggesting that such loans must be much higher at their smaller, unlisted peers. Many of these loans are simple bad debts which banks have not yet admitted to. Another troubling fact is that fifteen years ago, the government created asset-management companies (often referred to as badbanks) to take on the non-performing loans of the lenders. After the initial transfer these companies had little to pay. But, last year, Cinda, the biggest of the bad banks, bought nearly 150 billion Yuan ($24 billion) of distressed assets last year, two-thirds more than in 2013. These assets would have raised the banks badloans ratio by a few tenths of a percentage point. Although such numbers do not seem very alarming, experts who reviewed last year’s results for 158 banks, of which only 20 are listed found that “shadow loans”, loans recorded as investments which may be a disguise for bad loans have grown to as much as 5.7 billion Yuan, or 5 of the industry’s assets. These are heavily concentrated on the balance sheets of smaller-unlisted banks, and at the very least, all this points to a need for recapitalisation of small banks.Choose the word which is most nearly the same in meaning to the word ‘TAGGING’ given in bold as used in the passage.....

MCQ-> You have brief passage with 5 questions following each passage. Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language - so the argument runs - must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.Now it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits, one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration; so the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writer.Many people believe that nothing can be done about the English language because
....