Based on the indications of probe A in the figure given below, what is wrong, if anything, with the circuit? p> ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Based on the indications of probe A in the figure given below, what is wrong, if anything, with the circuit?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->At the time of short-circuit; what will be the current in the circuit?....

QA->At the time of short-circuit, what will be the current in the circuit?....

QA->Whichdrug maker is setting up an innovation and development center (I&D) inMumbai to develop new drug formulations, new indications, dosing, packaging andother differentiated offerings?....

QA->On November 30, 2014, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that a senior Nazi figure who centrally involved in the implementation of the Holocaust had died in Syria around 2010, or four years earlier. Who is that Nazi figure?....

QA->What is the name given to the NASA space probe orbiting the planet Jupiter after entering orbit on July 5, 2016?....

MCQ->The RAM circuit given below is suspected of being bad. A check with a logic probe shows pulse activity on all of the address lines and data inputs. The / line and inputs are forced HIGH and the data output lines are checked with the logic probe. Q0, Q2, and Q3 show a dim indication on the logic probe; Q1 indicates a HIGH level on the logic probe. What, if anything, is wrong with the circuit?

....

MCQ-> Answer questions on the basis of information given in the following case. MBA entrance examination comprises two types of problems: formula - based problems and application - based problem. From the analysis of past data, Interesting School of Management (ISM) observes that students good at solving application - based problems are entrepreneurial in nature. Coaching institutes for MBA entrance exams train them to spot formula - based problems and answer them correctly, so as to obtain the required overall cut - off percentile. Thus students, in general, shy away from application - based problem and even those with entrepreneurial mind - set target formula - based problems. Half of a mark is deducted for every wrong answer.ISM wants more students with entrepreneurial mind - set in the next batch. To achieve this, ISM is considering following proposals: I. Preparing a question paper of two parts, Parts A and Part B of duration of one hour each. Part A and Part B would consist of formula - based problems and application - based problems, respectively. After taking away Part A, Part B would be distributed. The qualifying cut - off percentile would be calculated on the combined scores of two parts. II. Preparing a question paper comprising Part A and Part B. While Part A would comprise formula - based problems, Part B would comprise application - based problems, each having a separate qualifying cut - off percentile. III. Assigning one mark for formula - based problems and two marks for application based problems as an incentive for attempting application - based problems. IV. Allotting one mark for formula - based problems and three marks for application - based problem, without mentioning this is the question paper. Which of the following proposal (or combination of proposals) is likely to identify students with best entrepreneurial mind - set?....

MCQ->Based on the indications of probe A in the figure given below, what is wrong, if anything, with the circuit?

....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The wisdom of learning from failure is incontrovertible. Yet organisations that do it well are extraordinarily rare. This gap is not due to a lack of commitment to learning. Managers in the vast majority of enterprises that I have studied over the past 20 years —pharmaceutical. financial services, product design, telecommunications, and construction companies: hospitals; and NASA’s space shuttle program, among others— genuinely wanted to help their organisations learn from failures to improve future performance. In some cases they and their teams had devoted many hours to afteraction reviews, postmortems, and the like. But time after time I saw that these painstaking efforts led to no real change. The reason: Those managers were thinking about failure the wrong way. Most executives I’ve talked to believe that failure is bad (of course!). They also believe that learning from it is pretty straightforward: Ask people to reflect on what they did wrong and exhort them to avoid similar mistakes in the future—or, better yet, assign a team to review and write a report on what happened and then distribute it throughout the organisation. These widely held beliefs are misguided. First, failure is not always bad. In organisational life it is sometimes bad, sometimes inevitable, and sometimes even good. Second, learning from organisational failures is anything but straightforward. The attitudes and activities required to effectively detect and analyze failures are in short supply in most companies, and the need for context-specific learning strategies is underappreciated. Or – ganisations need new and better ways to go beyond lessons that are superficial (“Procedures weren’t followed”) or self-serving (“The market just wasn’t ready for our great new product”). That means jettisoning old cultural beliefs and stereotypical notions of success and embracing failure’s lessons. Leaders can begin by understanding how the blame game gets in the way. The Blame Game Failure and fault are virtually inseparable in most households. organisations, and cultures. Every child learns at some point that admitting failure means taking the blame. That is why so few organisations have shifted to a culture of psychological safety in which the rewards of learning from failure can be fully realised. Executives I’ve interviewed in organisations as different as hospitals and investment banks admit to being torn: How can they respond constructively to failures without giving rise to an anything-goes attitude? If people aren’t blamed for failures, what will ensure that they try as hard as possible to do their best work? This concern is based on a false dichotomy. In actuality, a culture that makes it safe to admit and report on failure can—and in some organisational contexts must–coexist with high standards for performance. To understand why, look at the exhibit “A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure,” which lists causes ranging from deliberate deviation to thoughtful experimentation. Which of these causes involve blameworthy actions? Deliberate deviance, first on the list, obviously warrants blame. But inattention might not. If it results from a lack of effort, perhaps it’s blameworthy. But if it results from fatigue near the end of an overly long shift, the manager who assigned the shift is more at fault than the employee. As we go down the list, it gets more and more difficult to find blameworthy acts. In fact, a failure resulting from thoughtful experimentation that generates valuable information may actually be praiseworthy. When I ask executives to consider this spectrum and then to estimate how many of the failures in their organisations are truly blameworthy, their answers are usually in single digits—perhaps 2% to 5%. But when I ask how many are treated as blameworthy, they say (after a pause or a laugh) 70% to 90%. The unfortunate consequence is that many failures go unreported and their lessons are lost. Question : sophisticated understanding of failure’s causes and contexts will help to avoid the blame game and institute an effective strategy for learning from failure. Although an infinite number of things can go wrong in organisations, mistakes fall into three broad categories: preventable, complexity-related, and intelligent.Which of the following statement (s) is/are true in the context of the given passage ? I. Most executives believe that failure is bad and learning from it is pretty straightforward. II. The wisdom of learning from failure is disputable. III. Deliberate deviance, first on the list of the exhibit, “A Spectrum of Reasons for Failure” obviously warrants blame.....

MCQ->The circuit given below fails to function; the inputs are checked with a logic probe and the following indications are obtained: CLK, J1, J2, J3, K1, K2, and K3 are pulsing. Q and are HIGH. and PRE are LOW. What could be causing the problem?

....