Statements : Some shows are plays. Some plays are movies. No movie is theatre. Conclusions : I. All movies are plays. II. Some shows are definitely not theatres. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statements : Some shows are plays. Some plays are movies. No movie is theatre. Conclusions : I. All movies are plays. II. Some shows are definitely not theatres.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->…………….means the annual financial statements and other statements prescribed under Rule 65 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Accounts) Rules, 2011?....

QA->Iconic Bollywood movie which has been finally released in the theatres in Pakistan after 40 years when the film was first released in India?....

QA->Not definitely or clearly expressed....

QA->Acclaimed dramatist, theatre director and poet who has given to Malayalam literature and theatre fine works such as “Avanavan Kadamba”,” Daivathar”, “Kaikkuttappad” and “Ottayaan”, passed away on June 26, 2016?....

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->Statements : Some shows are plays. Some plays are movies. No movie is theatre. Conclusions : I. All movies are plays. II. Some shows are definitely not theatres.....

MCQ-> Read the passage and answer the questions that follow: Passage II Reverence is a dirty word at the Almeida Theatre in Islington, North London. Rupert Goold, the artistic director, and Robert Icke, his associate, are resolved to take dusty, distant cultural artefacts of drama and shake them hard. so that they will entertain modern audiences, especially those with no previous knowledge of the plays. Mr Icke holds that to save the classics from withering, a director must be willing even to reinterpret the original author's intentions. This summer Messrs Goold and Icke have directed freshly translated versions of the oldest of all "dusty theatrical artefacts": the ancient Greek tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides. These versions ruthless) rewrite texts and alter plots. In Euripides's "Medea'. the last of the season of three plays which opened on 1st October directed by Mr Goold. Medea murders her two children as revenge on her unfaithful husband. Not at the Almeida: in this version, her sons die—or perhaps do not—by eating sleeping pills. Mr Icke's version of "Oresteia" by Aeschylus is described as "a new adaptation", but classics scholars insist that it is much more than that. The masked male chorus which propels all Greek tragedy, so memorable in Sir Peter Hall's production at the National Theatre in 1981, is jettisoned. Mr Icke's -Oresteie starts with 46 pages of text (out of 113 in all) that are a dramatisation of the long choral ode in Aeschylus's "Agamemnon-. It deals with his decision to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia to ensure his ships a fair wind for Troy. Mr Icke believes that, without this prelude, it is hard to appreciate fully the ensuing, awe-inspiring family tragedy in which his wife Klytemnestra kills Agamemnon to avenge their daughter's death, and then is murdered in turn by their son Orestes. The extra material makes for a long evening, but it speeds by. Only the "Bakkhai". the second of the Almeida's three plays, conforms to the traditional Greek unities of time and place, and as in ancient Greece, has all the speaking roles played by three actors, backed by a chorus (though of Bacchic ladies rather than masked men). The Greek season defines the Almeida's style of work. Mr Goold has unearthed a rich new seam of modem theatre by reviving and generally energising work by authors such as Luigi Pirandello and Bret Easton Ellis. His delightful version of "The Merchant of Venice"- set in Las Vegas, was played largely for laughs, with the verse adapting easily to a singsong southern American accent. Even his failures, such as a "King Lear and Puccini at the English National Opera, had moments that linger in the memory. Actors like working there. Since small theatres like the Almeida cannot pay well, actors choose the work over the money. In this Greek season, the two most memorable performances are by Lia Williams as Klytemnestra and Kate Fleetwood, who is Mr Goold's wife, as Medea. Each exhibits an emotional range that holds the action together. The rage, temper and insult of the dialogue between Medea and her husband Jason, here conducted on their mobile phones, reveal a direct linguistic link from ancient Greece to contemporary soap opera. Whatever quibbles there might be about the editing, cutting and rewriting of the texts, surely the significant question about this ambitious project is whether the audience is gripped by the performances. Enthusiastic word-of-mouth suggests the answer is yes.In this passage, the word "reverence" can be interpreted as....

MCQ->Statements: All players are spectators. Some spectators are theatres. Some theatres are dramas. Conclusions: Some dramas are spectators. Some players are dramas. Some theatres are players. All spectators are players.

....

MCQ->Two statements are given followed by two conclusion I and II. You have to consider the two statements to be true even if they seem to be true even if they seem to be variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given conclusion, if anym follow from the given statements Statements: 1. All English movies are violent. 2. Some people like watching English movies. Conclusions: I. All people watching English movie like violence. II. All people who like violence watch English movies.....

MCQ-> I want to stress this personal helplessness we are all stricken with in the face of a system that has passed beyond our knowledge and control. To bring it nearer home, I propose that we switch off from the big things like empires and their wars to more familiar little things. Take pins for example! I do not know why it is that I so seldom use a pin when my wife cannot get on without boxes of them at hand; but it is so; and I will therefore take pins as being for some reason specially important to women.There was a time when pinmakers would buy the material; shape it; make the head and the point; ornament it; and take it to the market, and sell it and the making required skill in several operations. They not only knew how the thing was done from beginning to end, but could do it all by themselves. But they could not afford to sell you a paper of pins for the farthing. Pins cost so much that a woman's dress allowance was calling pin money.By the end of the 18th century Adam Smith boasted that it took 18 men to make a pin, each man doing a little bit of the job and passing the pin on to the next, and none of them being able to make a whole pin or to buy the materials or to sell it when it was made. The most you could say for them was that at least they had some idea of how it was made, though they could not make it. Now as this meant that they were clearly less capable and knowledgeable men than the old pin-makers, you may ask why Adam Smith boasted of it as a triumph of civilisation when its effect had so clearly a degrading effect. The reason was that by setting each man to do just one little bit of the work and nothing but that, over and over again, he became very quick at it. The men, it is said, could turn out nearly 5000 pins a day each; and thus pins became plentiful and cheap. The country was supposed to be richer because it had more pins, though it had turned capable men into mere machines doing their work without intelligence and being fed by the spare food of the capitalist just as an engine is fed with coals and oil. That was why the poet Goldsmith, who was a farsighted economist as well as a poet, complained that 'wealth accumulates, and men decay'.Nowadays Adam Smith's 18 men are as extinct as the diplodocus. The 18 flesh-and-blood men have been replaced by machines of steel which spout out pins by the hundred million. Even sticking them into pink papers is done by machinery. The result is that with the exception of a few people who design the machines, nobody knows how to make a pin or how a pin is made: that is to say, the modern worker in pin manufacture need not be one-tenth so intelligent, skilful and accomplished as the old pinmaker; and the only compensation we have for this deterioration is that pins are so cheap that a single pin has no expressible value at all. Even with a big profit stuck on to the cost-price you can buy dozens for a farthing; and pins are so recklessly thrown away and wasted that verses have to be written to persuade children (without success) that it is a sin to steal, if even it’s a pin.Many serious thinkers, like John Ruskin and William Morris, have been greatly troubled by this, just as Goldsmith was, and have asked whether we really believe that it is an advance in wealth to lose our skill and degrade our workers for the sake of being able to waste pins by the ton. We shall see later on, when we come to consider the Distribution of Leisure, that the cure for this is not to go back to the old free for higher work than pin-making or the like. But in the meantime the fact remains that the workers are now not able to make anything themselves even in little bits. They are ignorant and helpless, and cannot lift their finger to begin their day's work until it has all been arranged for them by their employer's who themselves do not understand the machines they buy, and simply pay other people to set them going by carrying out the machine maker's directions.The same is true for clothes. Earlier the whole work of making clothes, from the shearing of the sheep to the turning out of the finished and washed garment ready to put on, had to be done in the country by the men and women of the household, especially the women; so that to this day an unmarried woman is called a spinster. Nowadays nothing is left of all this but the sheep shearing; and even that, like the milking of cows, is being done by machinery, as the sewing is. Give a woman a sheep today and ask her to produce a woollen dress for you; and not only will she be quite unable to do it, but you are likely to find that she is not even aware of any connection between sheep and clothes. When she gets her clothes, which she does by buying them at the shop, she knows that there is a difference between wool and cotton and silk, between flannel and merino, perhaps even between stockinet and other wefts; but as to how they are made, or what they are made of, or how they came to be in the shop ready for her to buy, she knows hardly anything. And the shop assistant from whom she buys is no wiser. The people engaged in the making of them know even less; for many of them are too poor to have much choice of materials when they buy their own clothes.Thus the capitalist system has produced an almost universal ignorance of how things are made and done, whilst at the same time it has caused them to be made and done on a gigantic scale. We have to buy books and encyclopaedias to find out what it is we are doing all day; and as the books are written by people who are not doing it, and who get their information from other books, what they tell us is twenty to fifty years out of date knowledge and almost impractical today. And of course most of us are too tired of our work when we come home to want to read about it; what we need is cinema to take our minds off it and feel our imagination.It is a funny place, this word of capitalism, with its astonishing spread of education and enlightenment. There stand the thousands of property owners and the millions of wage workers, none of them able to make anything, none of them knowing what to do until somebody tells them, none of them having the least notion of how it is made that they find people paying them money, and things in the shops to buy with it. And when they travel they are surprised to find that savages and Esquimaux and villagers who have to make everything for themselves are more intelligent and resourceful! The wonder would be if they were anything else. We should die of idiocy through disuse of our mental faculties if we did not fill our heads with romantic nonsense out of illustrated newspapers and novels and plays and films. Such stuff keeps us alive, but it falsifies everything for us so absurdly that it leaves us more or less dangerous lunatics in the real world.Excuse my going on like this; but as I am a writer of books and plays myself, I know the folly and peril of it better than you do. And when I see that this moment of our utmost ignorance and helplessness, delusion and folly, has been stumbled on by the blind forces of capitalism as the moment for giving votes to everybody, so that the few wise women are hopelessly overruled by the thousands whose political minds, as far as they can be said to have any political minds at all, have been formed in the cinema, I realise that I had better stop writing plays for a while to discuss political and social realities in this book with those who are intelligent enough to listen to me.A suitable title to the passage would be
....