What does the passage talk about? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. What does the passage talk about?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->First Robot to Talk in Space ?....

QA->I am extremely sorry I can’t talk to you now, I am……....

QA->Who is the author of “We Need to Talk about Kevin”?....

QA->Who is the author of We Need to Talk about Kevin?....

QA->When is International Talk like a Pirate Day is observed?....

MCQ-> Give an input a machine generates passcode step by step following certain rules as illustrated below: Input : talk seven 37 48 given 83 likely 62 Step I :37 talk seven 48 given 83 likely 62 Step III :37 talk 48 seven given 83 likely 62 Step IV :37 talk 48 seven given 62 likely given 83 Step V :37 talk 48 seven 62 likely 83 given Step V is the last step for this input. In the above following questions same logic as illustrated above is to be used.Step II for an input is ‘’23 working 48 32 park blossom 26 garden’’. What will be the fifth step ?
....

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.
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and solve the questions based on it.In an. Engineering College, five students from five different cities were elected as Secretaries by the students to perform different student activities. Each student studies in a different branch of engineering. Additionally, the following information is provided:(i) Abhishek does not stay in the Aravalli hostel where the student from Nagpur stays. (ii) The student, whose name is not Abhishek and does not study in Metallurgy, stays in Satpura hostel. He is the only student among the five to stay at Satpura hostel (iii) Hardeep neither belongs to Jodhpur, nor does he study Mechanical Engineering. (iv) The student-in-charge of Cultural activity stays in the Aravalli hostel where Civil Engineering student does not stay. (v) Sanjoy and thistudent, who studies Metallurgy, both stay in the same hostel. (vi) The student who belongs to Allahabad does not stay with the student-in-charge of the Sports activity staying at Aravalli hostel. (vii) Sanjoy is not the student-in-charge of the Cultural activity. (viii) Ravi, the student-in-charge of Mess activity, stays at Satpura hostel. (ix) The student from Patna and the student, who studies Mechanical Engineering, both stay at Aravalli hostel. They are the only two among the five students to stay at this hostel. (x) The student, who stays at Satpura hostel, studies Computer Science. (xi) Hemant, who does not belong to Kochi, studies Chemical Engineering. He is not the General Secretary of the Student Body. (xii) Sanjoy does not belong to Allahabad. (xiii) The student from Kochi and the student-in-charge of Placement activity, both stay at the Vindhya hostel.Which of the following statement(s) is (are) incorrect? I. The Chemical Engineering student and the student-in-charge of Cultural activity, both stay in the same hostel. II. The student in-charge of Placement activity is studying Metallurgy. III. The student who belongs to Nagpur is the student-in-charge of Sports activity. IV. Ravi belongs to Jodhpur.....

MCQ-> Directions : In the following questions, you have two brief passages with 5 questions in each passage, Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives. PASSAGE -I Stuck with be development dilemma? Stay away from management courses. Seriously, one of the biggest complaints that organisations have about management courses is that they fail to impact the participants' on-the-job behaviour. Some management trainers stress the need for follow-up and reinforcement on the job. Some go so far as briefing the participants' managers on what behaviour they should be reinforcing back on the job. Others include a follow-up training day to review the progress of the participants. None of this is really going far enough. The real problem is that course promoters view development as something which primarily, takes place in a classroom. A course is an event and events are, by definition limited in time. When you talk about follow-up after a course, it is seen as a nice idea, but not as an essential part of the participants' development programme. Any rational, empowered individual should be able to take what has been learnt in a course and transfer it to the work place or so the argument goes. Another negative aspect of the course mindset is that, primarily, development is thought to be about skill-acquisition. So, it is felt that the distinction between taking the course and behaving differently in the work place parallels the distinction between skill-acquisition and skill-application. But can such a sharp distinction be maintained ? Skills are really acquired only in the context of applying them on the job, finding them effective and therefore, reinforcing them. The problem with courses is that they are events, while development is an on-going process which, involves, within a complex environment, continual interaction, regular feedback and adjustment. As we tend to equate development with a one-off event, it is difficult to get seriously motivated about the follow-up. Anyone paying for a course tends to look at follow-up as an unnecessary and rather costly frill. PASSAGE II One may look at life, events, society, history, in another way. A way which might, at a stretch, be described as the Gandhian way, though it may be from times before Mahatma Gandhi came on the scene. The Gandhian reaction to all the grim poverty, squalor and degradation of the human being would approximate to effort at self-change and self-improvement, to a regime of living regulated by discipline from within. To change society, the individual must first change himself. In this way of looking at life and society, words too begin to mean differently. Revolution, for instance, is a term frequently used, but not always in the sense it has been in the lexicon of the militant. So also with words like peace and struggle. Even society may mean differently, being some kind of organic entity for the militant, and more or less a sum of individuals for the Gandhian. There is yet another way, which might, for want of a better description, be called the mystic. The mystic's perspective measures these concerns that transcend political ambition and the dynamism of the reformer, whether he be militant or Gandhian. The mystic measures the terror of not knowing the remorseless march of time:he seeks to know what was before birth, what comes after death. The continuous presence of death, of the consciousness of death, sets his priorities. and values: militants and Gandhians kings and prophets must leave all that they have built:all that they have un-built and depart when messengers of the buffalo-riding Yama come out of the shadows. Water will to water, dust to dust. Think of impermanence. Everything passes.What is the passage about?
....

MCQ->Pick out thể one word for - a secret arrangement....