In a certain language “Raja and Rani” is written as “ni mo chi” and Rani of Jhansi” is written as “mo ko lo” then “Raja of Jodhpur” may be coded as ?->(Show Answer!)

1. In a certain language “Raja and Rani” is written as “ni mo chi” and Rani of Jhansi” is written as “mo ko lo” then “Raja of Jodhpur” may be coded as

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.41 am

The common word in the first and second scripts is Rani which is therefore coded as mo. The second and third scripts have to have a common word in their codes ( of) but not mo. So, option a is the right answer.

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->If ‘BANK’ is coded as ‘CAMP’ in a language, how is ‘RAMP’ coded in that language?....

QA->In a particular code language GREET is coded as FQDDS, how is FORD coded in that language ?....

QA->In a particular code language GREET is coded as FQDDS, how is FORD coded in that language?....

QA->If PROMOTION is written in certain coded message as QSp89 then what will be the code for DEMOTION?....

QA->In a certain code SUNDAY is coded as USDNYA. How could CREATION be written in that code?....

MCQ->In a certain language “Raja and Rani” is written as “ni mo chi” and Rani of Jhansi” is written as “mo ko lo” then “Raja of Jodhpur” may be coded as....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it.Certain words/phrase have-been printed in the bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. King Hutamasan felt he had everything in the world not only due to his riches and his noble knights but because of his beautiful queen Rani Matsya The rays of the sun were put to shame with the iridescent light that Matsya illuminated with her beauty and brains At the right hand of the king she was known to sit and aid him in all his judicial probes You could not escape her deep-set eyes when you committed a crime as she always knew the and the culprit Her generosity preceded her reputation in the kingdom and her hands were always full to give people in the kingdom revered her because if she passed by she always gave to the compassionate and poor Far away from the kingly palace lived a man named Raman with only ends to his poverty as he had lost all his land to the landlord,His age enabled him little towards manual labour and so begging was the only alternative to salvage his wife and children Every morning he went door to door for some work food or money.The kindness of people always got him enough to take home But Raman was a little self centered His world began with him first followed by his family and the rest So he would eat and drink to his delight and return home with whatever he found excess This routine followed and he never let anyone discover his interest as he always put on a long face when he reached home. One day as he was relishing the bowl of rice he had just received from a humble home he heard that Rani Matsya was to pass from the very place he was standing Her generosity had reached his ears and he knew if he pulled a long face and showed how poor he was she would hand him a bag full of gold coins enough for the rest of his life enough to buy food and supplies for his family.He thought he could keep some coins for himself and only reveal a few to his wife so he can fulfill his own wishes. He ran to the chariot of the Rani and begged her soldiers to allow him to speak to the queen Listening to the arguments outside Rani Matsya opened the curtains of her chariot and asked Raman what he wanted Raman went on his knees and praised the queen I have heard you are most generous and most chaste show this beggar some charity Rani narrowed her brows and asked Raman what he could give her in return Surprised by such a question Raman looked at his bowl full of rice With spite in him he just picked up a few grains of rice and gave it to the queen Rani Matsya counted the 5 grains and looked at his bowl full of rice and said you shall be given what is due to you Saying this the chariot galloped away Raman abused her under his breath This he never thought would happen How could she ask him for something in return when she hadn’t given him anything ? Irked with anger he stormed home and gave his wife the bowl of rice Just then he saw a sack at the enterence His wife said some men had come and kept it there He opened it to find it full of rice He put his hand inside and caught hold of a hard metal only to discover it was a gold coin Elated he upturned the sack to find 5 gold coins in exact for the five rice grains If only I had given my entire bowl thought Raman I would have had a sack full of gold.According to the passage which of the following is definitely true about Rani Matsya ? (A)She was beautiful (B)She was intelligent (C)She was kind....

MCQ-> Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently. For these reasons some cognitive scientists have described language as a psychological faculty, a mental organ, a neural system, and a computational module. But I prefer the admittedly quaint term “instinct”. It conveys the idea that people know how to talk in more or less the sense that spiders know how to spin webs. Web-spinning was not invented by some unsung spider genius and does not depend on having had the right education or on having an aptitude for architecture or the construction trades. Rather, spiders spin spider webs because they have spider brains, which give them the urge to spin and the competence to succeed. Although there are differences between webs and words, I will encourage you to see language in this way, for it helps to make sense of the phenomena we will explore. Thinking of language as an instinct inverts the popular wisdom, especially as it has been passed down in the canon of the humanities and social sciences. Language is no more a cultural invention than is upright posture. It is not a manifestation of a general capacity to use symbols: a three-year-old, we shall see, is a grammatical genius, but is quite incompetent at the visual arts, religious iconography, traffic signs, and the other staples of the semiotics curriculum. Though language is a magnificent ability unique to Homo sapiens among living species, it does not call for sequestering the study of humans from the domain of biology, for a magnificent ability unique to a particular living species is far from unique in the animal kingdom. Some kinds of bats home in on flying insects using Doppler sonar. Some kinds of migratory birds navigate thousands of miles by calibrating the positions of the constellations against the time of day and year. In nature’s talent show, we are simply a species of primate with our own act, a knack for communicating information about who did what to whom by modulating the sounds we make when we exhale. Once you begin to look at language not as the ineffable essence of human uniqueness hut as a biological adaptation to communicate information, it is no longer as tempting to see language as an insidious shaper of thought, and, we shall see, it is not. Moreover, seeing language as one of nature’s engineering marvels — an organ with “that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which justly excites our admiration,” in Darwin’s words - gives us a new respect for your ordinary Joe and the much-maligned English language (or any language). The complexity of language, from the scientist’s point of view, is part of our biological birthright; it is not something that parents teach their children or something that must be elaborated in school — as Oscar Wilde said, “Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.” A preschooler’s tacit knowledge of grammar is more sophisticated than the thickest style manual or the most state-of-the-art computer language system, and the same applies to all healthy human beings, even the notorious syntaxfracturing professional athlete and the, you know, like, inarticulate teenage skateboarder. Finally, since language is the product of a wellengineered biological instinct, we shall see that it is not the nutty barrel of monkeys that entertainercolumnists make it out to be.According to the passage, which of the following does not stem from popular wisdom on language?
....

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.
....

MCQ->If B is coded as 8, F is coded as 6, Q is coded as 4, D is coded as 7, T is coded as 2, M is coded as 3, and K is coded as 5, then what is the coded form of QKTBFM ?....