Victoria Falls was discovered by ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Victoria Falls was discovered by ?

Answer: David Livingstone (British)

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Victoria Falls was discovered by ?....

QA->On which river are Victoria Falls in Africa located?....

QA->Niagara Falls was discovered by....

QA->Where is Victoria Memorial Hall situated ?....

QA->British India placed under the direct government of the Crown. Queen Victoria’s Proclamation.....

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. The flora and fauna of Cubbon Park captures our attention more than anything else. But when you take time to look closely at the statue, you will marvel at its sheer grandeur. Sculpted by Sir Thomas Brock, the 11 feet high marble statue is larger than life. It brings out the personality of Queen Victoria, who had been the Monarch of Great Britain from 1837 till 1901, depicting a rather proud, stern person with pronounced features. In 1906, the statue was unveiled in the city by George Frederick Ernest Albert, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall and York, making it stand in all its glory in its 111th year. Even though there is a wealth of history to the statue, and it was made to appear imposing, the busy Bengalureans would probably refer to it as just another landmark. As the workers are busy in discussion on the instructions given to them, life continues as usual in the Park.Queen Victoria ruled Great Britain for how many years?
...

MCQ->The Victoria Falls in Africa is located on which river?...

MCQ-> Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow it:There are no Commandments in art and no easy axioms for art appreciation. “Do I like this?” is the question anyone should ask themselves at the moment of confrontation with the picture. But if “yes,” why “yes”? and if “no,” why “no”? The obvious direct emotional response is never simple, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the “yes” or “no” has nothing at all to do with the picture in its own right. “I don’t understand this poem” and “I don’t like this picture” are statements that tell us something about the speaker. That should be obvious, but in fact, such statements are offered as criticisms of art, as evidence against, not least because the ignorant, the lazy, or the plain confused are not likely to want to admit themselves as such. We hear a lot about the arrogance of the artist but nothing about the arrogance of the audience. The audience, who have given no thought to the medium or the method, will glance up, flick through, chatter over the opening chords, then snap their fingers and walk away like some monstrous Roman tyrant. This is not arrogance; of course, they can absorb in a few moments, and without any effort, the sum of the artist and the art.Admire me is the sub-text of so much of our looking; the demand put on art that it should reflect the reality of the viewer. The true painting, in its stubborn independence, cannot do this, except coincidentally. Its reality is imaginative not mundane.When the thick curtain of protection is taken away; protection of prejudice, protection of authority, protection of trivia, even the most familiar of paintings can begin to work its power. There are very few people who could manage an hour alone with the Mona Lisa. Our poor art-lover in his aesthetic laboratory has not succeeded in freeing himself from the protection of assumption. What he has found is that the painting objects to his lack of concentration; his failure to meet intensity with intensity. He still has not discovered anything about the painting, but the painting has discovered a lot about him. He is inadequate, and the painting has told him so.When you say “This work is boring/ pointless/silly/obscure/élitist etc.,” you might be right, because you are looking at a fad, or you might be wrong because the work falls so outside of the safety of your own experience that in order to keep your own world intact, you must deny the other world of the painting. This denial of imaginative experience happens at a deeper level than our affirmation of our daily world. Every day, in countless ways, you and I convince ourselves about ourselves. True art, when it happens to us, challenges the “I” that we are and you say, “This work has nothing to do with me.”Art is not a little bit of evolution that late-twentieth-century city dwellers can safely do without. Strictly, art does not belong to our evolutionary pattern at all. It has no biological necessity. Time taken up with it was time lost to hunting, gathering, mating, exploring, building, surviving, thriving. We say we have no time for art. If we say that art, all art. is no longer relevant to our lives, then we might at least risk the question “What has happened to our lives?” The usual question, “What has happened to art?” is too easy an escape route.A young man visits a critically acclaimed modern art exhibition in his city and finds that he doesn’t like any of the exhibits. If he were to share his experience with the author of the passage, which of the following is most likely to be the author’s response?
...

MCQ->In a shower, 5 cm of rain falls. The volume of water that falls on 1.5 hectares of ground is:...

MCQ->DC current flows in one direction, while ac current rises from zero to a maximum, then falls to zero in one direction, then rises to a maximum, then falls to zero in the opposite direction....