<b>Statement followed by sonic conclusions are given below. b> <b>Statement:b> The search team believes that the plane debris recovered in 2016, near Mozambique was highly likely to be from ME-1370- Malaysian aircraft which disappeared after take-of ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statement followed by sonic conclusions are given below. Statement: The search team believes that the plane debris recovered in 2016, near Mozambique was highly likely to be from ME-1370- Malaysian aircraft which disappeared after take-off in 2014. Conclusions: I. The debris found near Mozambique definitely belonged to MH370 aircraft. II. The search team is mistaken about the findings. Find which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The Malaysian aircraft which disappeared with 239 passengers?....

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

QA->In which country a Malaysian aircraft was shot down by amissile in July 2014-....

QA->Name the indigenously developed nuclear capable sub-sonic cruise missile of India which was test-fired from a test range at Chandipur on October 17, 2014?.....

QA->Not definitely or clearly expressed....

MCQ->Statement followed by sonic conclusions are given below. Statement: The search team believes that the plane debris recovered in 2016, near Mozambique was highly likely to be from ME-1370- Malaysian aircraft which disappeared after take-off in 2014. Conclusions: I. The debris found near Mozambique definitely belonged to MH370 aircraft. II. The search team is mistaken about the findings. Find which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage: A new paper published by Rochman and her colleagues in February, in the journal Ecology, sifts through past research on marine debris to assess the true extent of the environmental threat. Plenty of studies have sounded alarm bells about the state of marine debris: Rochman and her colleagues set out to determine how many of those perceived risks are real Often. Rochman says, scientists will wrap up a paper by speculating about the broader impacts of what they've found. Maybe their study has shown that certain seabirds eat plastic bags, for example, and the paper goes on to warn that whole bird populations are at risk of dying out. "But the truth was that nobody had yet tested those perceived threats." Rochman says. "There wasn't a lot of information." Rochman and her colleagues examined more than a hundred papers on the impacts of marine debris that were published through 2013. Within each paper. they asked what threats scientists had studied-366 perceived threats in all and what they'd actually found. In 83 percent of cases, the perceived dangers of ocean trash were proven true. In most of the remaining cases. the working group found the studies too shoddy to draw conclusions from—they lacked a control group, for example. or used faulty statistics. Strikingly. Rochman says, only one well-designed study failed to find the effect it was looking for, an investigation of mussels ingesting microscopic plastic bits. The plastic moved from the mussels' stomachs to their bloodstreams. scientists found. and stayed there for weeks—but didn't seem to stress out the shellfish. A lot of ocean debris is "microplastic," or pieces smaller than five millimetres. These may be the beads from a facial scrub. fibres shed by synthetic clothing in the wash. or eroded remnants of larger debris. Compared to the number of studies investigating large-scale debris. Roclunan's group found little research on the effects of these tiny bits. There are also, she adds, a lot of open questions about the ways that ocean debris can lead to sea-creature death. Many studies have looked at how plastic affects an individual animal or that animal's tissues or cells, rather than whole populations. And in the lab, scientists often use higher concentrations of plastic than what's really in the ocean. None of that tells us how many birds or fish or sea turtles could die form plastic pollution or how deaths in one species could affect that animal's predators, or the rest of the ecosystem. "We need to be asking more ecologically relevant questions." Rothman says. Usually, scientists don't know how disasters like oil spills or nuclear meltdowns will affect the environment until after they've happened. she says. "We don't ask the right questions early enough." But if ecologists can understand how the slow-moving disaster of ocean garbage is affecting ecosystems. they might be able to prevent things from getting worse.Which ONE of the following conclusions based on the examination of the hundred-odd papers on marine debris and its ecological impact by Rachman and her colleagues is NOT CORRECT?
....

MCQ-> In each question below are two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the two given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically commonly follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer a: if only conclusion I follows. Give answer b: if only conclusion II follows. Give answer c: if either conclusion I or II follows. Give answer d: if both conclusions I and II follow. Give answer e: if neither conclusion I nor II follows.Statements: All buses are cars. Some buses are trucks. Conclusions: I. Some buses are definitely not trucks. II. At least some trucks are cars.....

MCQ-> In each question below are two statements followed by two conclusions numbered I and II. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.Give answer a: if only conclusion I follows. Give answer b: if only conclusion II follows. Give answer c: if either conclusion I or II follows. Give answer d: if neither conclusion I nor II follows. Give answer e: if both conclusions I and II follow.Statements : Some trains are stations. All trains are goods. Conclusions : I. All goods are trains. II. Some stations are definitely not goods.....

MCQ-> In each question given below two or three statements followed by two Conclusions numbered I and II have been given. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from the commonly known facts and then decide which of the following Conclusions logically follows from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts. Give answer a: if only Conclusion I follows Give answer b: if only Conclusion II follows Give answer c: if either Conclusion I or Conclusion II follows Give answer d: if neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows Give answer e: if both the Conclusions I and II followStatements: All magazines are journals. Some journals are periodicals. All periodicals are bulletins. Conclusions: I. Some periodicals are definitely not journals. II. All periodicals being magazines is a possibility.....