Statement: "We do not want you to see our product on newspaper, visit our shop to get a full view." - An advertisement. Assumptions: People generally decide to purchase any product after seeing the name in the advertisement. Uncommon appeal may attra ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statement: "We do not want you to see our product on newspaper, visit our shop to get a full view." - An advertisement. Assumptions: People generally decide to purchase any product after seeing the name in the advertisement. Uncommon appeal may attract the customers. People may come to see the product.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->…………. is the authority empowered to accord Administrative Sanction for the purchase of items of stores exceeding Rs.10000 but below Rs.20000, other than those included in Appendix II of the Store purchase Rules:....

QA->As per the procurement guidelines what method of purchase should be adopted when a Grama Panchayat intends to purchase electrical goods for Rs.20000?....

QA->Any industry located in a rural area which produces any goods or renders any service with or without the use of power and in which the fixed capital investment per head of a worker does not exceed one lakh rupees is known as:....

QA->Government purchase policy generally permits a price performance up to 15% or even up to ……….. % or even higher in special circumstances for indigenous products over imported stores.....

QA->Who is authorised to decide over a dispute regarding disqualification of a member of Parliament?....

MCQ->Statement: "We do not want you to see our product on newspaper, visit our shop to get a full view." - An advertisement. Assumptions: People generally decide to purchase any product after seeing the name in the advertisement. Uncommon appeal may attract the customers. People may come to see the product.

....

MCQ-> I think that it would be wrong to ask whether 50 years of India's Independence are an achievement or a failure. It would be better to see things as evolving. It's not an either-or question. My idea of the history of India is slightly contrary to the Indian idea.India is a country that, in the north, outside Rajasthan, was ravaged and intellectually destroyed to a large extent by the invasions that began in about AD 1000 by forces and religions that India had no means of understanding.The invasions are in all the schoolbooks. But I don't think that people understand that every invasion, every war, every campaign, was accompanied by slaughter, a slaughter always of the most talented people in the country. So these wars, apart from everything else led to a tremendous intellectual depletion of the country.I think that in the British period, and in the 50 years after the British period, there has been a kind of regrouping or recovery, a very slow revival of energy and intellect. This isn't an idea that goes with the vision of the grandeur of old India and all that sort of rubbish. That idea is a great simplification and it occurs because it is intellectually, philosophically easier for Indians to manage.What they cannot manage, and what they have not yet come to terms with, is that ravaging of all the north of India by various conquerors. That was ruined not by the act of nature, but by the hand of man. It is so painful that few Indians have begun to deal with it. It is much easier to deal with British imperialism. That is a familiar topic, in India and Britain. What is much less familiar is the ravaging of India before the British.What happened from AD 1000 onwards, really, is such a wound that it is almost impossible to face. Certain wounds are so bad that they can't be written about. You deal with that kind of pain by hiding from it. You retreat from reality. I do not think, for example, that the Incas of Peru or the native people of Mexico have ever got over their defeat by the Spaniards. In both places the head was cut off. I think the pre-British ravaging of India was as bad as that.In the place of knowledge of history, you have various fantasies about the village republic and the Old Glory. There is one big fantasy that Indians have always found solace in: about India having the capacity for absorbing its conquerors. This is not so. India was laid low by its conquerors.I feel the past 150 years have been years of every kind of growth. I see the British period and what has continued after that as one period. In that time, there has been a very slow intellectual recruitment. I think every Indian should make the pilgrimage to the site of the capital of the Vijayanagar empire, just to see what the invasion of India led to. They will see a totally destroyed town. Religious wars are like that. People who see that might understand what the centuries of slaughter and plunder meant. War isn't a game. When you lost that kind of war, your town was destroyed, the people who built the towns were destroyed. You are left with a headless population.That's where modern India starts from. The Vijayanagar capital was destroyed in 1565. It is only now that the surrounding region has begun to revive. A great chance has been given to India to start up again, and I feel it has started up again. The questions about whether 50 years of India since Independence have been a failure or an achievement are not the questions to ask. In fact, I think India is developing quite marvelously, people thought — even Mr Nehru thought — that development and new institutions in a place like Bihar, for instance, would immediately lead to beauty. But it doesn't happen like that. When a country as ravaged as India, with all its layers of cruelty, begins to extend justice to people lower down, it's a very messy business. It's not beautiful, it's extremely messy. And that's what you have now, all these small politicians with small reputations and small parties. But this is part of growth, this is part of development. You must remember that these people, and the people they represent, have never had rights before.When the oppressed have the power to assert themselves, they will behave badly. It will need a couple of generations of security, and knowledge of institutions, and the knowledge that you can trust institutions — it will take at least a couple of generations before people in that situation begin to behave well. People in India have known only tyranny. The very idea of liberty is a new idea. The rulers were tyrants. The tyrants were foreigners. And they were proud of being foreign. There's a story that anybody could run and pull a bell and the emperor would appear at his window and give justice. This is a child's idea of history — the slave's idea of the ruler's mercy. When the people at the bottom discover that they hold justice in their own hands, the earth moves a little. You have to expect these earth movements in India. It will be like this for a hundred years. But it is the only way. It's painful and messy and primitive and petty, but it’s better that it should begin. It has to begin. If we were to rule people according to what we think fit, that takes us back to the past when people had no voices. With self-awareness all else follows. People begin to make new demands on their leaders, their fellows, on themselves.They ask for more in everything. They have a higher idea of human possibilities. They are not content with what they did before or what their fathers did before. They want to move. That is marvellous. That is as it should be. I think that within every kind of disorder now in India there is a larger positive movement. But the future will be fairly chaotic. Politics will have to be at the level of the people now. People like Nehru were colonial — style politicians. They were to a large extent created and protected by the colonial order. They did not begin with the people. Politicians now have to begin with the people. They cannot be too far above the level of the people. They are very much part of the people. It is important that self-criticism does not stop. The mind has to work, the mind has to be active, there has to be an exercise of the mind. I think it's almost a definition of a living country that it looks at itself, analyses itself at all times. Only countries that have ceased to live can say it's all wonderful.The central thrust of the passage is that
....

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?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. Once upon a time there lived a queen in the city of Benaras. Her name was Khema and she was the wife of King Bahuputtaka:One night, the Queen had a dream of a beautiful golden goose that spoke with great wisdom, almost as if he was a sage: She told her husband that she desperately wanted to see a bird just like the one in her dream. So the King aksed his ministers to find out all that they could about a bird such as this. He was told that such a bird did exist but was extremely rare and difficult to find: They advised him to build a beautiful lake aon the outskirts of Benaras so that he may attract such rare and lovely creatures to reside there: In this way the queen might have her wish. Towards the norh, on Mount Cittakuta, there lived about ninety thousand wild geese headed by a beautiful golden goose called King Dhatarattha He got to hear of this exquisite lake surrounded by water lilies and lotuses floating on the surface: The kKing had invited all the birds to come and live on it, promising that one of them would ever be harmed: Corn was acattered on a daily basis in order to attract the birds. So a couple of geese went up to their King, the golden goose and told him that they were quite tired of living up on the mountains and would like to see this wonderful lake where they had been promised food and protection. The king agreed to their request and took the floc down south towards Benaras. Meanwhile, at the lake ing Bahuputtaka had placed hunters all around in order to capture any golden goose that happened to pass by. So the next morning when the headhunter saw this flock of geese approaching he was very excited to see their golden leader. He immediatey went about setting up a snare amongst the water lilies and lotuses, as he knew that the leader would definitely be the first to alight. The whole flock came flying down in one mighty seoop and as expected it was the King’s foot that touched the water first. He was esnsnared and could not escape: Seeing this, the other geese flew into a panic: But none had the courage to try to free their king and so flew back to Mount Cittacuta for safety. All except one: He was the chief captain, Sumukha:King Dhatarattha entreated him to fly to safety too, as he would surely be captured if he stayed by his sid: But Sumukha replied that he would never desert his master in the face of danger and swould either try to save him or die by his side: At this point the hunter approached and as Sumukha saw him he decided to appeal to his compassion. The hunter asked the golden goose how come he had not noticed the trap that was set. The golden goose replied that when one’s time was up it was no use to struggle against what was fated and one must just accept it. The huntsman was very impressed with his grace and wisdom. He then turned to Sumukha and asked why he had not fled with the other birds even though he was free to do so. Sumukha answered that the golden goose was his King, best friend and master and that he could never desert him even at the cost of his own life: Hearing this, the hunter realised that these were a couple of rare birds of great nobility. He did not much care for his own King’s reward and decided to do the right thing and set them free: He told Sumukha that as he was ready to die for his ing he would set them both free to fly wherever they wish.Why were the geese keen on visiting the lake in Benaras?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it, certain words are printed in the bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.Once upon a time there lived a queen in the city of Benaras. Her name was Khema and she was the wife of king Bahuputtaka . One night, the Queen had a dream of a beautiful golden goose that spoke with great wisdom, almost as if he was a sage. She told her husband that she desperately wanted to see a bird just like the one in her dream. So the king asked his minister to find out all that they could about a bird such as this. He was told that such a bird did exist but was extremely rare and difficult to find. They advised him to build a beautiful lake on the outskirts of Benaras so that he may attract such rare and lovely creatures to reside there. In this way the queen might have her wish. Towards the north, on Mount Cittakuta, there lived about ninety thousand wild geese headed by a beautiful golden goose called king Dhatarattha. He got to hear of this exquisite lake surrounded by water lilies and lotuses floating on the surface. The king had invited all the birds to come and live on it, promising that none of them would ever be harmed. Corn was scattered on a daily basis in order to attract the birds. So a couple of geese went up to their king, the golden goose and told him that they were quite tired of living up on the mountains and would like to see this wonderful lake where they had been promised food and protection. The king agreed to their request and took the flock down south towards Benaras Meanwhile, at the lake king Bahuputtaka had placed hunters all around in order to capture any golden goose that happened to pass by. So the next morning when the headhunters saw this flock of geese approaching he was very excited to see their golden leader. He immediately went about setting up snare amongst the water lilies and lotuses, as he knew that the leader would definitely be the first to alight . The whole flock came flying down in one mighty swoop and as expected it was the king's foot that touched the water first. He was ensnared and could not escape, seeing this the other geese flew into a panic. But none had the courage to try to free their king and so flew back to Mount Cittacuta for safety. All except one. He was the chief captain, Sumukha replied that he would never desert his master in the face of danger and would either try to save him or die by his side. At this point the hunter approached and as Sumukha saw him he decided to appeal to his compassion. The hunter asked the golden goose how come he had not noticed the trap that was set. The golden goose replied that when one's time was up it was no use to struggle against what was fated and one must just accept it. The huntsman was very impressed with his grace and wisdom He then turned to Sumukha and asked why he had not fled with other birds even though he was free to do. Sumukha answered that the golden goose was his king best friend and master and that he could never desert him even at the cost of his own life. Hearing this, the hunter realised that these were a couple of rare birds of great nobility. He did not much care for his own king's reward and decided to do the right thing and set them free. He told Sumukha that as he was ready to die for his king he would set them both free to fly wherever they wish.Why were the geese keen on visiting the lake in Benaras ?
....