Among the following which is not the tributaries of the Canga river ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Among the following which is not the tributaries of the Canga river ?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Penganga; Wardha and Wainganga are the tributaries of which river?....

QA->Amravati; Bhavani; Hemavati and Kabini are tributaries of which river?....

QA->Penganga, Wardha and Wainganga are the tributaries of which river?....

QA->Amravati, Bhavani, Hemavati and Kabini are tributaries of which river?....

QA->Which river has the largest number of tributaries?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the questions. Passage:Where is this going?' That is the question at the heart of River of Life, River of Death, as author Victor Mallet travels the length of the Ganges. Beginning at its ice cave source in the Himalayan foothills. he follows the water through the holy confluence at Allahabad. the spindly banks of Varanasi city and onwards to the delta in Bangladesh. where 'in its parting gift to the land. the river spews millions of tons of fertile silt on to the rice fields of Bengal and the mangroves of the Sundarbans.' It is the same question he asks about the treatment of the Ganges. both good and bad. The river leads a double life. being the most worshipped waterway in the world and also one of the most polluted. The Ganges and its tributaries are now subject to sewage pollution that is 'half a million times over the Indian recommended limit for bathing' in places. not to mention the unchecked runoff from heavy metals, fertilizers. carcinogens and the occasional corpse. As Mallet observes. the danger of contamination does not put off the millions of revellers at Kuinbh Mela. It is a Hindu pilgrimage 'thought to be the largest gathering of people anywhere'. described to him as 'a spiritual expo... where you will be talking one moment to a visiting Mumbai businessman and the next to a marijuana-stoned yogi. He suggests the pollution might never deter them. He is told by one bather: 'we do believe that anyone who takes in this water. he becomes pure also. because it is always pure.' There is a collective sense that the spirit of the Ganges is so sacred that she can never be spoiled. He informs the reader in the preface — 'almost everyone knows the problems are real'. His journey down the Ganges is one of investigation rather than discovery. Mallet investigates the potential of the river to become a cradle for antibiotic-resistant infections — or superbugs' — that could be exported to other regions by global travel. He points out that some 450 million people depend on the Ganges water basin for survival, and many more for its religious and cultural importance. The Ganges is a goddess and a mother to everyone from the politician in the north, to the humblest Hindu living in the far south or running a motel in the United States. There is hope. Mallet draws some parallels to clean-ups of the Rhine and the Thames. He points to the design feat of Ktunbh Mela, which as 'a pop-up megacity' for two million pilgrims has better infrastructure and waste treatment than many Indian cities. 'In the minds of both Indians and foreigners. this raises important questions... if the authorities can build infrastructure so efficiently for this short but very large festival why can they not do the same for permanent villages and towns?'Which ONE of the options fills in the blank and completes the statement below correctly? The average believer is of the faith-driven conviction that the river Ganges....

MCQ->Among the following which is not the tributaries of the Canga river ?....

MCQ-> DIRECTIONS for the following questions: These questions are based on the situation given below: A young girl Roopa leaves home with x flowers, goes to the bank of a nearby river. On the bank of the river, there are four places of worship, standing in a row. She dips all the x flowers into the river. The number of flowers doubles. Then she enters the first place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. She dips the remaining flowers into the river, and again the number of flowers doubles. She goes to the second place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. She dips the remaining flowers into the river, and again the number of flowers doubles. She goes to the third place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. She dips the remaining flowers into the river, and again the number of flowers doubles. She goes to the fourth place of worship, offers y flowers to the deity. Now she is left with no flowers in hand.If Roopa leaves home with 30 flowers, the number of flowers she offers to each deity is:
....

MCQ->Which of the following best explain why the lower course of a river is sometimes choked with sediments? The valley of a river is widest in its lower course. The velocity of a river in its lower course is low. The delta sometimes develops in a river's lower course Much of the river water is drawn for irrigation in the lower course. Select the correct answer using the code given below:....

MCQ-> If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though non-economical folk. Like serious talk anywhere — among boat desingers and baseball fans, say — the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist’s favourite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech-metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority.Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an ‘invisible hand’ and the organization of work as a ‘production function’ and his coefficients as being ‘significant’, as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language.If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks.The paying of attention to one’s audience is called ‘rhetoric’, a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president’s ‘heated rhetoric’ in a press conference or the ‘mere rhetoric’ to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language: inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse.The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of ‘results’ or a stater of ‘conclusions’ free of rhetoric — speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesn’t speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honoured, en-Nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech.Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners whey they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office or the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful: to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship.The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economist’s role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve.Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, “Who are those?” “Aha!” comes the reply, ”those are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!” Their conversations do it.According to the passage, which of the following is the best set of reasons for which one needs to ‘look hard’ at an economist’s language?A. Economists accomplish a great deal through their language.B. Economics is an opinion-based subject.C. Economics has a great impact on other’s lives.D. Economics is damaging.
....