In a jungle there lived (a)/a lion who felt ashamed (b)/of himself because (c)/he was scared on chickens. (d)/No error (e) ?->(Show Answer!)

1. In a jungle there lived (a)/a lion who felt ashamed (b)/of himself because (c)/he was scared on chickens. (d)/No error (e)

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->That can be felt or touched....

QA->Preposition adding to " ashamed "....

QA->Preposition adding with " ashamed "....

QA->Preposition attaching with ashamed:....

QA->Who is the author of Jungle Book?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. Once upon a time, there lived a lion in a forest. A jackal, a crow and a wolf had developed friendship. They knew that the lion was the king of the forest and friendship with such a fierce creature would always help them. To meet their selfish ends, they started obeying and were always at the service of the lion. They didn’t have to make any efforts to search for their food, as the lion gave his leftover meals to them. Moreover, they became powerful as they were next to the king of the forest. One day, a camel, who came from some distant land, lost his way and entered the same forest where these friends lived. In the meantime, these three friends happened to pass the same way that the camel was wandering. When they saw the camel, they realized that he did not belong to their forest. The jackal suggested to his other two friends, “Let’s kill and eat him.” The wolf replied, “It is a big animal. We cannot kill him like this. I think, we should first inform our king about this camel.” The crow agreed with the wolf s idea. All of them went to meet the lion. On reaching the lion’s den, the jackal approached the lion and said, Your Majesty, an unknown camel has dared to enter your kingdom without your consent, Let’s kill him; he could make a nice meal.” The lion roared loudly on hearing this and said, ‘What are you saying ? The camel has come for refuge in ray kingdom. It is unethical to kill him. We should provide him the best shelter. Go and bring him to me,” All of them were dispirited to hear these words from the king. They unwillingly went to the camel and told him about the lion’s desire to meet him, The camel was scared about the strange offer. He thought that his end had come and in a little while he would become the lion’s meal. As he couldn’t even escape, he decided to meet the lion. The selfish friends escorted the camel to the lion’s den. The lion welcomed the camel warmly and assured him of a safe stay in the forest. The camel was totally amazed to hear the lion’s words. He happily started living with the jackal, the crow and the wolf. One day, when the lion was hunting for food, he had a struggle with a mighty elephant. The lion was badly injured in the struggle and became incapable of hunting for his food. Thus the lion had to sustain without food for days. Due to this, his friends too had to go hungry for days as they totally depended on the lion’s kill for their food. But the camel was satisfied grazing around in the forest. All the three friends were worried and discussed the matter among them, As the jackal, the crow and the wolf had set their evil eyes on the camel, they met once again and devised a plan to kill the camel. They went to the camel and said, “Dear Friend, you know our king has not eaten anything for many days now. He is unable to hunt due to his wounds and sickness. Under such circumstances, it becomes our duty to sacrifice ourselves to save the life of our king. Come with us, we will offer our bodies as food for him.” The camel didn’t understand their plan, but innocently nodded in favour of it. All of them approached the lion’s den. First of all, the crow came forward and said, “Your Majesty, I can’t see you like this. So please eat me.” The lion replied, “I would prefer to die than to perform such a sinful deed.” Then, the jackal came forward and said, “Your Majesty, crow’s body is too small for your appetite. I offer myself to you, as it is my duty to save your life.” The lion politely rejected the offer. As per the plan, now it was the wolf’s turn to offer himself to the king. So, the wolf came forward and said, “Your Majesty, jackal is quite small to gratify your hunger. I offer myself for this kind job, Please, kill me and appease your hunger.” But the Lion didn’t kill any of them. The camel, who was watching the whole scene felt reassured of his safety and also decided to go forward and complete the formality. He marched forward and said, “Your Majesty, why don’t you kill me ? You are my friend. Please allow me to offer you my body.” The lion found the offer quite appropriate as the camel himself had offered his body for food. The lion attacked the camel at once, ripped open his body and lore him into pieces. The lion and his friends feasted on the poor camel for days together.‘Why could the lion not hunt anymore ?
....

MCQ->In a jungle there lived (a)/a lion who felt ashamed (b)/of himself because (c)/he was scared on chickens. (d)/No error (e)....

MCQ-> The persistent patterns in the way nations fight reflect their cultural and historical traditions and deeply rooted attitudes that collectively make up their strategic culture. These patterns provide insights that go beyond what can be learnt just by comparing armaments and divisions. In the Vietnam War, the strategic tradition of the United States called for forcing the enemy to fight a massed battle in an open area, where superior American weapons would prevail. The United States was trying to re-fight World War II in the jungles of Southeast Asia, against an enemy with no intention of doing so. Some British military historians describe the Asian way of war as one of indirect attacks, avoiding frontal attacks meant to overpower an opponent. This traces back to Asian history and geography: the great distances and harsh terrain have often made it difficult to execute the sort of open-field clashes allowed by the flat terrain and relatively compact size of Europe. A very different strategic tradition arose in Asia. The bow and arrow were metaphors for an Eastern way of war. By its nature, the arrow is an indirect weapon. Fired from a distance of hundreds of yards, it does not necessitate immediate physical contact with the enemy. Thus, it can be fired from hidden positions. When fired from behind a ridge, the barrage seems to come out of nowhere, taking the enemy by surprise. The tradition of this kind of fighting is captured in the classical strategic writings of the East. The 2,000 years' worth of Chinese writings on war constitutes the most subtle writings on the subject in any language. Not until Clausewitz, did the West produce a strategic theorist to match the sophistication of Sun-tzu, whose Art of War was written 2,300 years earlier. In Sun-tzu and other Chinese writings, the highest achievement of arms is to defeat an adversary without fighting. He wrote: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." Actual combat is just one among many means towards the goal of subduing an adversary. War contains too many surprises to be a first resort. It can lead to ruinous losses, as has been seen time and again. It can have the unwanted effect of inspiring heroic efforts in an enemy, as the United States learned in Vietnam, and as the Japanese found out after Pearl Harbor. Aware of the uncertainties of a military campaign, Sun-tzu advocated war only after the most thorough preparations. Even then it should be quick and clean. Ideally, the army is just an instrument to deal the final blow to an enemy already weakened by isolation, poor morale, and disunity. Ever since Sun-tzu, the Chinese have been seen as masters of subtlety who take measured actions to manipulate an adversary without his knowledge. The dividing line between war and peace can be obscure. Low-level violence often is the backdrop to a larger strategic campaign. The unwitting victim, focused on the day-to-day events, never realizes what's happening to him until it's too late. History holds many examples. The Viet Cong lured French and U.S. infantry deep into the jungle, weakening their morale over several years. The mobile army of the United States was designed to fight on the plains of Europe, where it could quickly move unhindered from one spot to the next. The jungle did more than make quick movement impossible; broken down into smaller units and scattered in isolated bases, US forces were deprived of the feeling of support and protection that ordinarily comes from being part of a big army. The isolation of U.S. troops in Vietnam was not just a logistical detail, something that could be overcome by, for instance, bringing in reinforcements by helicopter. In a big army reinforcements are readily available. It was Napoleon who realized the extraordinary effects on morale that come from being part of a larger formation. Just the knowledge of it lowers the soldier's fear and increases his aggressiveness. In the jungle and on isolated bases, this feeling was removed. The thick vegetation slowed down the reinforcements and made it difficult to find stranded units. Soldiers felt they were on their own. More important, by altering the way the war was fought, the Viet Cong stripped the United States of its belief in the inevitability of victory, as it had done to the French before them. Morale was high when these armies first went to Vietnam. Only after many years of debilitating and demoralizing fighting did Hanoi launch its decisive attacks, at Dienbienphu in 1954 and against Saigon in 1975. It should be recalled that in the final push to victory the North Vietnamese abandoned their jungle guerrilla tactics completely, committing their entire army of twenty divisions to pushing the South Vietnamese into collapse. This final battle, with the enemy's army all in one place, was the one that the United States had desperately wanted to fight in 1965. When it did come out into the open in 1975, Washington had already withdrawn its forces and there was no possibility of re-intervention. The Japanese early in World War II used a modern form of the indirect attack, one that relied on stealth and surprise for its effect. At Pearl Harbor, in the Philippines, and in Southeast Asia, stealth and surprise were attained by sailing under radio silence so that the navy's movements could not be tracked. Moving troops aboard ships into Southeast Asia made it appear that the Japanese army was also "invisible." Attacks against Hawaii and Singapore seemed, to the American and British defenders, to come from nowhere. In Indonesia and the Philippines the Japanese attack was even faster than the German blitz against France in the West. The greatest military surprises in American history have all been in Asia. Surely there is something going on here beyond the purely technical difficulties of detecting enemy movements. Pearl Harbor, the Chinese intervention in Korea, and the Tet offensive in Vietnam all came out of a tradition of surprise and stealth. U.S. technical intelligence – the location of enemy units and their movements was greatly improved after each surprise, but with no noticeable improvement in the American ability to foresee or prepare what would happen next. There is a cultural divide here, not just a technical one. Even when it was possible to track an army with intelligence satellites, as when Iraq invaded Kuwait or when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel, surprise was achieved. The United States was stunned by Iraq's attack on Kuwait even though it had satellite pictures of Iraqi troops massing at the border. The exception that proves the point that cultural differences obscure the West's understanding of Asian behavior was the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. This was fully anticipated and understood in advance. There was no surprise because the United States understood Moscow's worldview and thinking. It could anticipate Soviet action almost as well as the Soviets themselves, because the Soviet Union was really a Western country. The difference between the Eastern and the Western way of war is striking. The West's great strategic writer, Clausewitz, linked war to politics, as did Sun-tzu. Both were opponents of militarism, of turning war over to the generals. But there all similarity ends. Clausewitz wrote that the way to achieve a larger political purpose is through destruction of the enemy's army. After observing Napoleon conquer Europe by smashing enemy armies to bits, Clausewitz made his famous remark in On War (1932) that combat is the continuation of politics by violent means. Morale and unity are important, but they should be harnessed for the ultimate battle. If the Eastern way of war is embodied by the stealthy archer, the metaphorical Western counterpart is the swordsman charging forward, seeking a decisive showdown, eager to administer the blow that will obliterate the enemy once and for all. In this view, war proceeds along a fixed course and occupies a finite extent of time, like a play in three acts with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The end, the final scene, decides the issue for good. When things don't work out quite this way, the Western military mind feels tremendous frustration. Sun-tzu's great disciples, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, are respected in Asia for their clever use of indirection and deception to achieve an advantage over stronger adversaries. But in the West their approach is seen as underhanded and devious. To the American strategic mind, the Viet Cong guerrilla did not fight fairly. He should have come out into the open and fought like a man, instead of hiding in the jungle and sneaking around like a cat in the night. According to the author, the main reason for the U.S. losing the Vietnam war was
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. There was a country long time ago where the people would change a king every year. The person who would become the king had to agree to a contract that he would be sent to an island after one year of his being a king. One King had finished his term and it was time for him to go to the island and live there.The people dressed him up in expensive clothes and put him on an elephant and took him to around the cities to say goodbye to all the people. This was a moment of sadness for all kings who ruled for one year. After bidding farewell the people took the king to a remote island in a boat and left him there. On their way back they discovered a ship that had sunk just recently.They saw a young man who survived by holding on to a floating piece of wood. As they needed a new king, they picked up the young man and took him to their country. They requested him to be king for a year. First he refused but later he agreed to be the king. People told him about all the rules and regulations and about how he would be sent to an island after one year. After three days of being a king he asked the ministers if they could show him the island where all the other kings were sent. They agreed and took him to the island. The island was covered with a thick jungle and sounds of vicious animals were heard coming out of it. The king went a little bit further to check. Soon he discovered dead bodies of all the past kings.He understood that as soon as they were left on the island the wild animals had come and killed them. The king went back to the country and collected 100 strong workers. He took them to the island and instructed them to clean the jungle, remove all the deadly animals and cut down all excess trees. He would visit the island every month to see how the work was progressing. In the first month all the animals were removed and many trees were cut down. In the second month all the island were cleaned out. The king then told the workers to plant gardens in various parts of the island. He also took with himself useful animals like chickens, ducks, birds, goats,cows etc. In the third month he ordered the workers to build big house and docking stations for ships. Over the months the island turned into a beautiful place. The young king would wear simple clothes and spend very little from his earning as a king. He sent all the earnings to the island for storage. When nine months passed like this the king called the ministers and told them “I know that I have go to the island after one year but I would like to go there right now. But the ministers didn’t agree to this and said that he had to wait for another three months to complete the year. Three months passed and now it was a full year. The people dressed up the young king and put on an elephant to take him around the country to say goodbye to others. However this king was unusually happy to leave the kingdom. People asked him "All the other kings would cry at this moment. Why is it that you are laughing?". He replied “Don’t you know what the wise people say? They say that when you come to this world as a baby you are crying and everyone else is smiling. Live such a life that when you die you will be smiling and everyone around you will be crying. I have lived that life. While all the other kings were lost into the luxuries of the kingdom, I always thought about the future and planned for it. I turned the deadly island into a beautiful abode for me where I can stay peacefully”.Why did the people of the kingdom change the king every year ?
....

MCQ-> The painter is now free to paint anything he chooses. There are scarcely any forbidden subjects, and today everybody is prepared o admit that a painting of some fruit can be as important as painting of a hero dying. The Impressionists did as much as anybody to win this previously unheard of freedom for the artist. Yet, by the next generation, painters began to abandon tie subject altogether, and began to paint abstract pictures. Today the majority of pictures painted are abstract.Is there a connection between these two developments? Has art gone abstract because the artist is embarrassed by his freedom? Is it that, because he is free to paint anything, he doesn’t know what to paint? Apologists for abstract art often talk of it as Inc art of maximum freedom. But could this be the freedom of the desert island? It would take too long to answer these questions properly. I believe there is a connection. Many things have encouraged the development of abstract art. Among them has been the artists’ wish to avoid the difficulties of finding subjects when all subjects are equally possible.I raise the matter now because I want to draw attention to the fact that the painter’s choice of a subject is a far more complicated question than it would at first seem. A subject does not start with what is put in front of the easel or with something which the painter happens to remember. A subject starts with the painter deciding he would like to paint such-and-such because for some reason or other he finds it meaningful. A subject begins when the artist selects something for special mention. (What makes it special or meaningful may seem to the artist to be purely visual — its colours or its form.) When the subject has been selected, the function of the painting itself is to communicate and justify the significance of that selection.It is often said today that subject matter is unimportant. But this is only a reaction against the excessively literary and moralistic interpretation of subject matter in the nineteenth century. In truth the subject is literally the beginning and end of a painting. The painting begins with a selection (I will paint this and not everything else in the world); it is finished when that selection is justified (now you can see all that I saw and felt in this and how it is more than merely itself).Thus, for a painting to succeed it is essential that the painter and his public agree about what is significant. The subject may have a personal meaning for the painter or individual spectator; but there must also be the possibility of their agreement on its general meaning. It is at this point that the culture of the society and period in question precedes the artist and his art. Renaissance art would have meant nothing to the Aztecs — and vice versa. If, to some extent, a few intellectuals can appreciate them both today it is because their culture is an historical one: its inspiration is history and therefore it can include within itself, in principle if not in every particular, all known developments to date.When culture is secure and certain of its values, it presents its artists with subjects. The general agreement about what is significant is so well established that the significance of a particular subject accrues and becomes traditional. This is true, for instance, of reeds and water in China, of the nude body in Renaissance, of the animal in Africa. Furthermore in such cultures the artist is unlikely to be a free agent: he will be employed for the sake of particular subjects, and the problem, as we have just described it, will not occur to him.When a culture is in a state of disintegration or transitions the freedom of the artist increases — but the question of subject matter becomes problematic for him: he, himself, has to choose for society. This was at the basis of all the increasing crises in European art during the nineteenth century. It is too often forgotten how any of the art scandals of that time were provoked by the choice of subject (Gericault, Courbet, Daumier, Degas, Lautrec, Van Gogh, etc.).By the end of the nineteenth century there were, roughly speaking, two ways in which the painter could meet this challenge of deciding what to paint and so choosing for society. Either he identified himself with the people and so allowed their lives to dictate his subjects to him or he had to find his subjects within himself as painter. By people I mean everybody except the, bourgeoisie. Many painters did of course work for the bourgeoisie according to their copy-book of approved subjects, but all of them, filling the Salon and the Royal Academy year after year, are now forgotten, buried under the hypocrisy of those they served so sincerely.When a culture is insecure, the painter chooses his subject on the basis of:
....