Ankit scored 32, 45 and 49 marks in Physics, English and Philosophy respectively. The maximum marks in each subject is 50. Determine his overall percentage for the three subjects. ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Ankit scored 32, 45 and 49 marks in Physics, English and Philosophy respectively. The maximum marks in each subject is 50. Determine his overall percentage for the three subjects.

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.10 am

Total marks scored by Ankit in Physics, English and Philosophy respectively = $$32+45+49=126$$ Total aggregate marks of the three subjects = $$3 imes50=150$$ $$ herefore$$ Required percentage = $$frac{126}{150} imes100$$ = $$frac{126}{3} imes2=84\%$$ => Ans - (D)

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->There are 50 students in a class. In a class test 22 students get 25 marks each, 18 students get 30 marks each. Each of the remaining gets 16 marks. The average mark of the whole class is :....

QA->A school has only three classes comprised of 40, 50 and 60 students respectively. In these classes, 10%, 20% and 10% students respectively passed in the examinations. What is the percentage of students passed in the examination from the entire school?....

QA->Name the economy in which people work according to the principle ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’?....

QA->In a class of 50 students, 32 students passed in English and 38 students passed in Mathematics. If 20 students passed in both the subjects, the number of students who passed neither English nor Mathematics is :....

QA->If an officer is appointed to hold full charge of another post in addition to his own, he will be eligible for special allowance as a percentage of the minimum of the scale of pay of that post. This percentage shall not exceed:....

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:
....

MCQ-> The conceptions of life and the world which we call ‘philosophical’ are a product of two factors: one inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which may be called ‘scientific’, using this word in its broadest sense. Individual philosophers have differed widely in regard to the proportions in which these two factors entered into their systems, but it is the presence of both, in some degree, that characterizes philosophy.‘Philosophy’ is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain.Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge so I should contend belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to thelogy. But between theology and science there is a ‘No man’s Land’, exposed to attack from both sides; this ‘No Man’s Land’ is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? It is evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of order? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.Why, then, you may ask, waste time on such insoluble problems? To this one may answer as a historian, or as an individual facing the terror of cosmic loneliness.The answer of the historian, in so far as I am capable of giving it, will appear in the course of this work. Ever since men became capable of free speculation, their actions in innumerable important respects, have depended upon their theories as to the world and human life, as to what is good and what is evil. This is as true in the present day as at any former time. To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men’s lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances.There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we may become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.The purpose of philosophy is to
....

MCQ->Akash scored 73 marks in subject A. He scored 56% marks in subject B and X marks in subject C. Maximum marks in each subject were 150. The overall percentage marks obtained by Akash in the three subjects together were 54%. How many marks did he scored in subject C....

MCQ->Ankit scored 32, 45 and 49 marks in Physics, English and Philosophy respectively. The maximum marks in each subject is 50. Determine his overall percentage for the three subjects.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it Certain words/phrases have printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.Once upon a time there lived a vicious king Raja Shankara short-tempered and temperamental “God I am” he said to his image as he started into the mirror everyday many times a day He was obsessed with himself He loved no one but himself He was blinded towards the injustice in his kingdom because he had little time for his subjects He wasted most of his time in pouring milk and honey over himself Interruption in his possessed life was dealt with stern reprimanding and sometimes on petty issues he would behead his servants Provoked by his evil advisor Twishar he went on with his self-indulged life unaware of the plot his very devoted advisor was planning.A plot to dethrone the king rule the kingdom with his wicked ways only to harness wealth and the reputation of a King. One morning the king was on his usual morning horseback rounds but returned to the palace with an intense look on his face.He locked himself inside his palatial room only to unlock it at sundown.Just as the doors cracked open and Raja Shankara emerged from it his wife rushed to embrace him. She feared a damaging incident had occurred. The King spoke seldom that day and awoke the next day to make a proclamation to his servants and subjects.The whole kingdom feared what was in store for them from their angry King.But to their surprise he said to all gathered.”From now on I will be a different kings.A softer and a patient king. True to his words from that day on the king had truly turned on a new leaf he cleaned out the corruption and injustice in a tender manner with punishments aimed to renew the person from within. One fine day his evil advisor gathered courage to ask the reason for his paradigm shift And the king answered.When I went on horseback that morning a month ago, I noticed a dog brutally chasing a cat,The cat managed to sneak into a hole only after the dog bit her leg,maiming her for life.Not far the barked at a farmer who picked up a sharp stone and hit it straight in the dog’s eye.Bleeding profusely the dog yelped in pain.As the farmer walked on he slipped on the edge of the road and broke his head. All this happened in a matter of minutes before me and then I realized that evil begets evil.I thought about it deeply and was ready to give up my worldly life for the betterment of my subjects I wanted to give up evil in me as I did not want evil to encounter me. Sniggering away the immoral advisor thought what a perfect time it was to dethrone the king because the Raja had grown kind hearted and patient and would not endeavour a combat.Thinking how he would plan his attack he stumbled over a step that took him hurling down the remaining steps bringing his stop with a crash He howled in pain only to discover he had broken the bones in both his legs.How can Raja Shankara be described before his transformation ? (A)He was unjust (B)He was preoccupied with himself (C)He was cruel....