Unless you work harder you will fail, means ...... ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Unless you work harder you will fail, means ......

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->If P1 can fail 50% of the times and P2, 40% of the times, P can fail -----------of the times.....

QA->Unless you study well, you will not pass the exam : it is a______sentence....

QA->Unless you study well, you will not pass the exam : it is a....

QA->Anil can do a work in 12 days. Basheer can do it in 15 days. Chandran can do the same work in 20 days. If they all work together, the number of days need to complete the work is :....

QA->I advised him to work hard ____ he should fail....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given.Do you ever feel there’s is a greater being inside of you bursting to get out? It is the voice that encourages you to really make something of your life. When you act congruently with that voice, it’s like your are a whole new person. You are bold and courageous. You are strong. You are unstoppable. But, then reality sets in, and soon those moments are history. It is not hard to put youself temporarily into an emotionally motivated state. Just listen to that motivational song for that matter. However, this motivation does not stay forever. Your great ideas seem impractical. How many times have you been temporarily inspired with a idea like, “I want to start my own business.” And then a week later it’s forgotten? You come up with inspiring ideas when you are motivated. But you fail to maintain that motivation through the action phase.The problem we ask ourselves is, why does this happen? You can listen to hundereds of motivational speakers and experience an emotional yo-yo effect, but it does not fast. The problem is that as we are intellectually guided, we try to find logic in emotional motivation and as we fail to find logic eventually phases out. I used to get frustrated when my emotional motivation fizzled out after a while. Eventually, I realised that being guided by intellect, was not such a bad thing after all. I just had to learn to use my mind as an effective motivational tool. I figured that if I was not feeling motivated to go after a particular goal, may be there was a logical reason for it. I noted that when I had strong intellectual reasons for doing something. I usually did not have trouble taking action.But when my mind thinks a goal is wrong on some level. I usually feel blocked. I eventually realised that this was my mind’s way of telling me the goal was a mistake to begin with. Sometimes a goal seem to make sense on one level but when you look further upstream, it becomes clear that the goal is ill advised. Suppose you work in sales, and you get a goal to increase your income by 20% by becoming a more effective salesperson. That seems like a reasonable and intelligent goal. But may be you are surprised to find yourself encountering all sorts of internal blocks when you try to pursue it. You should feel motivated, but you just don’t. The problem may be that on a deeper level your mind knows you don’t want to be working in sales at all. You really want to be a musician. Matter how hard you push yourself in sales career, it will always be a motivational dead end.Further when you set goals, that are too small and too timid, you suffer a perpetual lack of motivation. You just need to summon the courage to acknowledge your true desires. Then you will have to deal with the self-doubt and fear that’s been making you think too small. Ironically, the real key to motivation is to set the goals that scare you. You are letting fears, excuses and limiting beliefs hold you back. Your subconscious mind knows you are strong, so it won’t provide any motivational fuel until. You step up, face your fears, and acknowledge your hearts desire. Once you finally decide to face your tears and drop the excuses, then you will find your motivation turning on full blast.What does the author want to convey when he says, “When you look further upstream, it becomes clear that the goal is ill advised.”?
....

MCQ-> A distinction should be made between work and occupation. Work implies necessity; it is something that must be done as contributing to the means of life in general and to one.s own subsistence in particular. Occupation absorbs time and energy so long as we choose to give them; it demands constant initiative, and it is its own reward. For the average person the element of necessity in work is valuable, for he is saved the mental stress involved in devising outlets for his energy. Work has for him obvious utility, and it bring the satisfaction of tangible rewards. Where as occupation is an end in itself, and we therefore demand that it shall be agreeable, work is usually the means to other ends . ends which present themselves to the mind as sufficiently important to compensate for any disagreeableness in the means. There are forms of work, of course, which since external compulsion is reduced to a minimum, are hardly to be differentiated from occupation. The artist, the imaginative writer, the scientist, the social worker, for instance, find their pleasure in the constant spontaneous exercise o creative energy and the essential reward of their work is in the doing of it. In all work performed by a suitable agent there must be a pleasurable element, and the greater the amount of pleasure that can be associated with work, the better. But for most people the pleasure of occupation needs the addition of the necessity provided in work. It is better for them to follow a path of employment marked out for them than to have to find their own.When, therefore, we look ahead to the situation likely to be produced by the continued rapid extension of machine production, we should think not so much about providing occupation for leisure as about limiting the amount of leisure to that which can be profitably usedWe shall have to put the emphasis on the work . providing rather than the goods. providing aspect of the economic process. In the earlier and more ruthless days of capitalism the duty of the economic system to provide work was overlooked The purpose of competitive enterprise was to realize a profit. When profit ceased or was curtailed, production also ceased or was curtailed Thus the workers, who were regarded as units of labour forming part of the costs of production, were taken on when required and dismissed when not required They hardly thought of demanding work as a right. And so long as British manufacturers had their eyes mainly on the markets awaiting them abroad, they could conveniently neglect the fact that since workers are also consumers, unemployment at home means loss of trade. Moral considerations did not yet find a substitute in ordinary business prudence. The labour movements arose largely as a revolt against the conception of workers as commodities to be bought and sold without regard to their needs as human beings. In a socialist system it is assumed that they will be treated with genuine consideration, for, the making of profit not being essential, central planning will not only adjust the factors of production to the best advantage but will secure regularity of employment. But has the socialist thought about what he would do if owing to technological advance, the amount of human labour were catastrophically reduced? So far as I know, he has no plan beyond drastically lining the hours of work, and sharing out as much work as there may be. And, of course, he would grant monetary relief to those who were actually unemployed But has he considered what would be the moral effect of life imagined as possible in the highly mechanized state of future? Has he thought of the possibility of bands of unemployed and under-employed workers marching on the capital to demand not income (which they will have but work?Future, according to the passage, may find the workers
....

MCQ-> In the following questions, you have two passages with 5 questions in each passage. Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives. Why don’t I have a telephone? Not because I pretend to be wise or pose as unusual. There are two chief reasons; because I don’t really like the telephone, and because I find I can still work and play, eat, breathe, and sleep without it. Why don’t I like the telephone? Because I think it is a pest and time waster. It may create unnecessary suspense and anxiety, as when you wait for an expected call, that doesn’t come; or irritating delay, as when you keep ringing a number that is always engaged. As for speaking in a public telephone booth, it seems to me really horrible. You would not use it unless you were in a hurry, and because you are in a hurry, you will find other people waiting before you. When you do get into the booth, you are half suffocated by the stale, unventilated air, flavoured with cheap face-powder and chain smoking; and by the time you have begun your conversation your back is chilled by the cold looks of somebody who is moving about restlessly to take your place.If you have a telephone in your house, you will admit that it tends to ring when you least want it to ring: when you are asleep, or in the middle of a meal or a conversation, or when you are just going out, or when you are in your bath. Are you strong minded enough to ignore it, to say to yourself. “Ah well, it will be all the same in hundred years time”. You are not. You think there may be some important news or message for you. Have you never rushed dripping from the bath, of chewing from the table, or dazed from bed, only to be told that you are a wrong number? You were told the truth. In my opinion all telephone numbers are wrong numbers. IL of course, your telephone rings and you decide not to answer it, then you will have to listen to an idiotic bell ringing and ringing in what is supposed to be the privacy of your own home. You might as well buy a bicycle bell and ring it Yourself.The author does not have a telephone because
....

MCQ-> In the following questions, read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives. Passage 1 Ultimately, we all have to decide for ourselves what constitutes failure, but the world is quite eager to give you as set of criteria if you let it. So I think it fair to say that by any conventional measure, a mere seven years after my graduation day, I had failed on an epic scale. An exceptionally short-lived marriage had imploded, and I was jobless, a lone parent, and as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless. The fears that my parents had and for me, and that I had had for myself, had both come to pass, and by every usual standard, I was the biggest failure I knew. Now, I am not going to stand here and tell you that failure is fun. That period of my life was a dark one, and I had no idea that there was going to be what the press has since represented as a kind of fairy tale resolution. I had no idea then how far the tunnel extended, and for a long time, any light at the end of it was a hope rather than a reality. So why do I talk about the benefits of failure ? Simply because failure meant a stripping away off the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and begin to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else. I might never has found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life. You might never fail on the scale I did, but some failure in life is inevitable. It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all in which case, you fail by default. Failure gave me an inner security that I had never attained by passing examinations. Failure taught me things about myself that I could have learned no other way. I discovered that I had a strong will, and more discipline than I had suspected; I also found out that I had friends whose value was truly above the price of rubies. The knowledge that you have emerged wiser and stronger from setbacks means that you are, ever after, secure in your ability to survive. You will never truly know yourself, or the strength of your relationships, until both have been tested by adversity. Such knowledge is a true gift, for all that it is painfully won, and it has been worth more than any qualification I ever earned.According to the author, what can be defined as ‘failure’?
....

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?
....