Having lived to ( a) Paris for two (b) years, Prakasii under stands (c) Fret reasonably well.(d) No error (e) ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Having lived to ( a) Paris for two (b) years, Prakasii under stands (c) Fret reasonably well.(d) No error (e)

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Mark stands well with his boss. Stands well closely me....

QA->With which India’s progress has been reasonably satisfactory in connection?....

QA->What is the name given to the new predatory dinosaur that lived in Utah around 100 million years ago?....

QA->Guttation occurs in well watered herbaceous plants of well drained soils during .?....

QA->Who is the author of “All’s Well that Ends Well”?....

MCQ->Having lived to ( a) Paris for two (b) years, Prakasii under stands (c) Fret reasonably well.(d) No error (e)....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questionsThere is an essential and irreducible ‘duality’ in the normative conceptualization of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her ‘agency’, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her ‘well-being’. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self- interested motivation, in which a person’s agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the person’s agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of one’s agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting. To recognize the distinction between the ‘agency aspect’ and the ‘well-being aspect’ of a person does not require us to take the view that the person’s success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a person’s well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation. The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility - based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well- being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true expect:
....

MCQ-> In the annals of investing, Warren Buffett stands alone. Starting from scratch, simply by picking stocks and companies for investment, Buffett amassed one of the epochal fortunes of the twentieth century. Over a period of four decades more than enough to iron out the effects of fortuitous rolls of the dice, Buffett outperformed the stock market, by a stunning margin and without taking undue risks or suffering a single losing year. Buffett did this in markets bullish and bearish and through economies fat and lean, from the Eisenhower years to Bill Clinton, from the l950s to the l990s, from saddle shoes and Vietnam to junk bonds and the information age. Over the broad sweep of postwar America, as the major stock averages advanced by 11 percent or so a year, Buffett racked up a compounded annual gain of 29.2 percent. The uniqueness of this achievement is more significant in that it was the fruit of old-fashioned, long-term investing. Wall Street’s modern financiers got rich by exploiting their control of the public's money: their essential trick was to take in and sell out the public at opportune moments. Buffett shunned this game, as well as the more venal excesses for which Wall Street is deservedly famous. In effect, he rediscovered the art of pure capitalism, a cold-blooded sport, but a fair one. Buffett began his career, working out his study in Omaha in 1956. His grasp of simple verities gave rise to a drama that would recur throughout his life. Long before those pilgrimages to Omaha, long before Buffett had a record, he would stand in a comer at college parties, baby-faced and bright-eyed, holding forth on the universe as a dozen or two of his older, drunken fraternity brothers crowded around. A few years later, when these friends had metamorphosed into young associates starting out on Wall Street, the ritual was the same. Buffett, the youngest of the group, would plop himself in a big, broad club chair and expound on finance while the others sat at his feet. On Wall Street, his homespun manner made him a cult figure. Where finance was so forbiddingly complex, Buffett could explain it like a general-store clerk discussing the weather. He never forgot that underneath each stock and bond, no matter how arcane, there lay a tangible, ordinary business. Beneath the jargon of Wall Street, he seemed to unearth a street from small-town America. In such a complex age, what was stunning about Buffett was his applicability. Most of what Buffett did was imitable by the average person (this is why the multitudes flocked to Omaha). It is curious irony that as more Americans acquired an interest in investing, Wall Street became more complex and more forbidding than ever. Buffett was born in the midst of depression. The depression cast a long shadow on Americans, but the post war prosperity eclipsed it. Unlike the modern portfolio manager, whose mind- set is that of a trader, Buffett risked his capital on the long term growth of a few select businesses. In this, he resembled the magnates of a previous age, such as J P Morgan Sr.As Jack Newfield wrote of Robert Kennedy, Buffett was not a hero, only a hope; not a myth, only a man. Despite his broad wit, he was strangely stunted. When he went to Paris, his only reaction was that he had no interest in sight-seeing and that the food was better in Omaha. His talent sprang from his unrivaled independence of mind and ability to focus on his work and shut out the world, yet those same qualities exacted a toll. Once, when Buffett was visiting the publisher Katharine Graham on Martha’s Vineyard, a friend remarked on the beauty of the sunset. Buffett replied that he hadn't focused on it, as though it were necessary for him to exert a deliberate act of concentration to "focus" on a sunset. Even at his California beachfront vacation home, Buffett would work every day for weeks and not go near the water. Like other prodigies, he paid a price. Having been raised in a home with more than its share of demons, he lived within an emotional fortress. The few people who shared his office had no knowledge of the inner man, even after decades. Even his children could scarcely recall a time when he broke through his surface calm and showed some feeling. Though part of him is a showman or preacher, he is essentially a private person. Peter Lynch, the mutual-fund wizard, visited Buffett in the 1980s and was struck by the tranquility in his inner sanctum. His archives, neatly alphabetized in metal filing cabinets, looked as files had in another era. He had no armies of traders, no rows of electronic screens, as Lynch did. Buffett had no price charts, no computer - only a newspaper clipping from 1929 and an antique ticker under a glass dome. The two of them paced the floor, recounting their storied histories, what they had bought, what they had sold. Where Lynch had kicked out his losers every few weeks, Buffett had owned mostly the same few stocks for years and years. Lynch felt a pang, as though he had traveled back in time. Buffett’s one concession to modernity is a private jet. Otherwise, he derives little pleasure from spending his fabulous wealth. He has no art collection or snazzy car, and he has never lost his taste for hamburgers. He lives in a commonplace house on a tree-lined block, on the same street where he works. His consuming passion - and pleasure - is his work, or, as he calls it, his canvas. It is there that he revealed the secrets of his trade, and left a self-portrait.“Saddle shoes and Vietnam”, as expressed in the passage, refers to: I. Denier cri and Vietnam war II. Growth of leather footwear industry and Vietnam shoe controversy III. Modern U.S. population and traditional expatriates IV. Industrial revolution and Vietnam Olympics V. Fashion and Politics....

MCQ-> Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Long time ago, in a forest, there lived a young antelope. He was fond of the fruits of a particular tree. In a village bordering the forest, there lived a hunter who captured and killed antelopes for various reasons. He used to set traps for animals under fruitbearing trees. When the animal came to eat the fruit, it would be caught in the trap. He would then take it away and kill it for its meat. One day, while visiting the forest in search of game, the hunter happened to see the antelope under its favourite tree, eating fruit. He was delighted. ‘What a big, plump antelope!’ he thought. ‘I must catch him. I will get a lot of money from selling his meat.’ Thereafter, for many days, the hunter kept track of the antelope’s movements. He realised that the antelope was remarkably vigilant and fleet footed animal that it would be virtually impossible for him to track him down. However, he had a weakness for that particular tree. The crafty concluded that he could use this weakness to capture him. Early one morning, the hunter entered the forest with some logs of wood. He climbed the tree and put up a machan (platform used by hunters) on one of its branches by tying the logs together. Having set his trap at the foot of the tree, he then took up position on the machan and waited for the antelope. He strewed a lot of iy ,ovef mrui bts eo rn2thoeig6round beneath the 11.004.3, tree to conceal the trap and lure the antelope. Soon, the antelope came strolling along. He was very hungry and was eagerly looking forward to his usual breakfast of delicious ripe fruits. On the treetop, the hunter, having sighted him, sat with bated breath, willing him to come closer and step into his trap. However, the antelope was no fool. As he neared the tree he stopped short. The number of fruits lying under the tree seemed considerably more than usual. Surely, something was amiss, decided the antelope. He paused just out of reach of the tree and carefully began examining the ground. Now, he saw what distinctly looked like a human footprint. Without going closer, he looked suspiciously at the tree. The hunter was well hidden in its thick foliage, nevertheless the antelope, on close scrutiny, was now sure that his suspicions had not been unfounded. He could see a corner of the machan peeping out of the leaves. Meanwhile the hunter was getting desperate. Suddenly, he had a brainwave. Let me try throwing some fruit at him,’ he thought. So the hunter plucked some choice fruits and hurled them in the direction of the antelope. Alas, instead of luring him closer, it only confirmed his fears! Raising his voice, he spoke in the direction of the tree —”Listen, my dear tree, until now you have always dropped your fruits on the earth. Today, you have started throwing them at me! This is the most unlikely action of yours and I’m not sure I like the change! Since you have changed your habits, I too will change mine. I will get my fruits from a different tree from now onone that still acts like a tree!’ The hunter realised that the antelope had outsmarted him with his cleverness. Parting the leaves to reveal himself, he I grabbed his javelin and flung it wildly at the antelope. But the clever antelope was well prepared for any such action on his part. Giving a saucy chuckle, he leapt nimbly out of the harm’s way.As mentioned in the story, which of the following can be said about the hunter ?
....

MCQ->‘B’ stands for addition, ‘Cr’ stands for subtraction, ‘E’ stands for multiplication, ‘C’ stands for division, ‘D’ stands for equal to, ‘A’ stands for greater than, stands for less than. In each of the four alternatives, only one expression is correct according to the letter symbol. Identify that expression.....