The phrase on the 'verge of giving up' ...... means: ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The phrase on the 'verge of giving up' ...... means:

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Offering, giving, receiving or soliciting directly or indirectly of anything of value, to influence improperly the actions of another party constitutes:....

QA->The President of India may sometimes simply keep a Bill on his table indefinitely without giving or refusing assent. This is :....

QA->WHICH UNIVERSITY HONOURED KUMARANASHAN BY GIVING THE TITLE ‘ MAHAKAVI ‘....

QA->Who is responsible for giving inspiration to translate Bible into English for the first time?....

MCQ->The phrase on the 'verge of giving up' ...... means:....

MCQ-> In the following some of the combinations of operations and an operand A: means ‘÷3’ B: means ‘x3’ C: means ‘-3’ D: means ‘+3’ E: means ‘÷2’ F: means ‘x2’ G: means ‘-2’ H: means ‘+2’42x21-12 ?=880
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage: Tutankhamen was Pharoah of Egypt from 1361 to 1352 BC. He died at the early age of nineteen and was buried in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings, on the west bank of the river Nile. Not much is known about the life of this king or why he died so young. In fact, we would never have heard of him if not for the magnificent treasures found in his tomb. All the other tombs in the Valley of the Kings had been robbed in ancient times. But nobody knew about Tutankhamen's tomb for hundreds of years. Hence, there was a great deal of excitement when his tomb was discovered by two Englishmen. One of them, Howard Carter, was a professional archaeologist. The other, Lord Camarvon, was a rich man interested in archaeology and who generously spent his money on excavations. For four years, from 1917 to 1922, they had been excavating in the Valley of the Kings without finding anything new. They were on the verge of giving up when a step appeared as Carter was clearing some stones near a royal tomb. He excavated further and unearthed a breathtaking collection of treasures in a tomb, all buried with Tutankhamen 3274 years ago! However, the story of Tutankhamen did not end there. Some Egyptians believed that according to an ancient curse anyone who touched Tutankhamen's tomb would die. Most people laughed at the idea of the curse coming true. However, when the last man climbed out of the tomb, a sudden sandstorm blew up and people saw a hawk, the ancient royal symbol of Egypt, fly overhead. Locals took this to mean that the spirit of the dead king had left his tomb, cursing those who had opened it. Five months later, Lord Camarvon, died of an infected mosquito bite on his cheek.Which ONE of the following statements is TRUE?
....

MCQ-> Each question is followed by two statements, A and B. Choose the option based on the given statements and questionsMr. Mendel grew one hundred flowering plants from black seeds and white seeds, each seed giving rise to one plant. A plant gives flowers of only one colour. From a black seed comes a plant giving red or blue flowers. From a white seed comes a plant giving red or white flowers. How many black seeds were used by Mr. Mendel?A. The number of plants with white flowers was 10.B. The number of plants with red flowers was 70.
....

MCQ-> If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though non-economical folk. Like serious talk anywhere — among boat desingers and baseball fans, say — the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist’s favourite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech-metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority.Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an ‘invisible hand’ and the organization of work as a ‘production function’ and his coefficients as being ‘significant’, as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language.If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks.The paying of attention to one’s audience is called ‘rhetoric’, a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president’s ‘heated rhetoric’ in a press conference or the ‘mere rhetoric’ to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language: inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse.The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of ‘results’ or a stater of ‘conclusions’ free of rhetoric — speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn’t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honoured, en-Nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech.Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners whey they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office or the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful: to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship.The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist’s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve.Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, ”those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations do it.According to the passage, which of the following is the best set of reasons for which one needs to ‘look hard’ at an economist’s language?A. Economists accomplish a great deal through their language.B. Economics is an opinion-based subject.C. Economics has a great impact on other’s lives.D. Economics is damaging.
....