Assertion (A): A graph can have many trees.Reason (R): The number of tree branches is equal to number of nodes.p> ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Assertion (A): A graph can have many trees.Reason (R): The number of tree branches is equal to number of nodes.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The number of null branches for a binary tree with n nodes is:....

QA->If n represents the dimension of cube and k, the radix(no. of nodes along each dimensions. then the number of nodes N of a K-ary n –cube network is :....

QA->A program Graph has ‘start’ and ‘end’ nodes. The total number of paths from start to end is equivalent to the -----------set of test data required to test the software.....

QA->The total number of possible ordered trees using 3 nodes A,B,C is :....

QA->Consider a Program Graph (PG) with statements as nodes and control as edges. Which of the following is not true for any PG?....

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->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 "); } }....

MCQ-> A passage is given with 5 questions following it. Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.Manja, or the glass-coated string used for flying kites, not only poses threat to humans, animals and birds but also to trees. A study by the country's oldest botanical garden has revealed that it poses a great threat to trees. But how can a snapped string struck in a tree kill the tree? Apparently, it does so by allying with the creepers in the garden.A research paper by three scientists of the Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden, located in West Bengal's Howrah district, illustrates in detail how the manja, in collusion with climbers, does the damage. "The abandoned, torn kite strings act as an excellent primary supporting platform for the tender climbers, giving easy passage to reach the top of the trees. Lateral branches from the top of the climber and other accessory branches from the ground reaches the top taking support of the first climber, completely covers the treetop, thus inhibiting the penetration of sunlight," says the research paper.Abandoned, torn kite strings stuck in trees benefits whom? ....

MCQ->Assertion (A): A graph can have many trees.Reason (R): The number of tree branches is equal to number of nodes.

....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....