In a certain coding language, 'Ginger is a root' is written as 4123, 'A tree has a root' is 75422 and 'Tree is green' is 385. . Which digit represents 'root'? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. In a certain coding language, 'Ginger is a root' is written as 4123, 'A tree has a root' is 75422 and 'Tree is green' is 385. . Which digit represents 'root'?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The difference between the largest four digit number and the smallest three digit number is :....

QA->The leading producer of coffee and ginger in Kerala....

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

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

QA->Where is Ginger Research Institute ?....

MCQ->In a certain coding language, 'Ginger is a root' is written as 4123, 'A tree has a root' is 75422 and 'Tree is green' is 385. . Which digit represents 'root'?....

MCQ-> Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Long time ago, in a forest, there lived a young antelope. He was fond of the fruits of a particular tree. In a village bordering the forest, there lived a hunter who captured and killed antelopes for various reasons. He used to set traps for animals under fruitbearing trees. When the animal came to eat the fruit, it would be caught in the trap. He would then take it away and kill it for its meat. One day, while visiting the forest in search of game, the hunter happened to see the antelope under its favourite tree, eating fruit. He was delighted. ‘What a big, plump antelope!’ he thought. ‘I must catch him. I will get a lot of money from selling his meat.’ Thereafter, for many days, the hunter kept track of the antelope’s movements. He realised that the antelope was remarkably vigilant and fleet footed animal that it would be virtually impossible for him to track him down. However, he had a weakness for that particular tree. The crafty concluded that he could use this weakness to capture him. Early one morning, the hunter entered the forest with some logs of wood. He climbed the tree and put up a machan (platform used by hunters) on one of its branches by tying the logs together. Having set his trap at the foot of the tree, he then took up position on the machan and waited for the antelope. He strewed a lot of iy ,ovef mrui bts eo rn2thoeig6round beneath the 11.004.3, tree to conceal the trap and lure the antelope. Soon, the antelope came strolling along. He was very hungry and was eagerly looking forward to his usual breakfast of delicious ripe fruits. On the treetop, the hunter, having sighted him, sat with bated breath, willing him to come closer and step into his trap. However, the antelope was no fool. As he neared the tree he stopped short. The number of fruits lying under the tree seemed considerably more than usual. Surely, something was amiss, decided the antelope. He paused just out of reach of the tree and carefully began examining the ground. Now, he saw what distinctly looked like a human footprint. Without going closer, he looked suspiciously at the tree. The hunter was well hidden in its thick foliage, nevertheless the antelope, on close scrutiny, was now sure that his suspicions had not been unfounded. He could see a corner of the machan peeping out of the leaves. Meanwhile the hunter was getting desperate. Suddenly, he had a brainwave. Let me try throwing some fruit at him,’ he thought. So the hunter plucked some choice fruits and hurled them in the direction of the antelope. Alas, instead of luring him closer, it only confirmed his fears! Raising his voice, he spoke in the direction of the tree —”Listen, my dear tree, until now you have always dropped your fruits on the earth. Today, you have started throwing them at me! This is the most unlikely action of yours and I’m not sure I like the change! Since you have changed your habits, I too will change mine. I will get my fruits from a different tree from now onone that still acts like a tree!’ The hunter realised that the antelope had outsmarted him with his cleverness. Parting the leaves to reveal himself, he I grabbed his javelin and flung it wildly at the antelope. But the clever antelope was well prepared for any such action on his part. Giving a saucy chuckle, he leapt nimbly out of the harm’s way.As mentioned in the story, which of the following can be said about the hunter ?
....

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->What will be the output of the program? class Tree { } class Pine extends Tree { } class Oak extends Tree { } public class Forest1 { public static void main (String [] args) { Tree tree = new Pine(); if( tree instanceof Pine ) System.out.println ("Pine"); else if( tree instanceof Tree ) System.out.println ("Tree"); else if( tree instanceof Oak ) System.out.println ( "Oak" ); else System.out.println ("Oops "); } }....