To beat around the bush means: ?->(Show Answer!)

1. To beat around the bush means:

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->What is the meaning of the idiom " Beat around the bush"....

QA->Idiom of Beat about the bush....

QA->Idiom of To beat about the bush....

QA->Phrase of the Idiom " Beat about the bush....

QA->THE WIND MOVING AROUND SPIRALLY AROUND A LOW PRESSURE AREA IS KNOWN AS....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in ‘’bold’’ to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.For years now, Grorge W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey ‘’Will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.’’ Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge-that the civilians who ran Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the president repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground? Now, as the war near the end of its fourth year and the number of Americans killed has surpassed 3,000, Bush had dropped the general-know-best line. Sometime next week the President is expected to propose a surge in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq for a period of upto two years. A senior official said reinforcements numbering ‘’About 20,000 troops,’’ and may be more, could be in place within months. The ‘’surge’’ would be achieved by extending the stay of some forces already in Iraq and accelerating the deployment of others.The ‘’irony’’ is that while the generals would have liked more troops in the past, they are ‘’cool’’ idea of sending more now. That’s in part because the politicians and commanders have had trouble agreeing on what the goal of a surge would be.But it is also because they are worried that a surge would further erode the readiness of U.S.’s already stressed ground forces. And even those who back a surge are under no ‘’illusions’’ about what it would mean to the casualty rate. ‘’If you put more American troops on the front line,’’ said a White House Official, ‘’You’re going to have more casualties.’’Coming from Bush, a man known for bold strokes, the surge is a strange half-measure---too large for the political climate at home, too small to crush the ‘’insurgency’’ in Iraq and surely three years too late. Bush has waved off a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride, ‘’stubbornness" or ideology, or some combination of the three. Rather than reversing course, as well the wise elders of the Iraq Study Group advised, the Commander in Chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one White House official calls ‘’Victory’’.Bush and Rumsfeld had received brickbats for----
....

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. Once upon a time, there lived a washerman in a village. He had a donkey by the name of Udhata. He used to carry loads of clothes to the river bank and back home everyday. The donkey was not satisfied with the food, that was given to him by his master to eat. So he wandered into the nearby fields stealthily and ate the crops growing there. Once, the donkey, while wandering around, happened to meet a fox. Soon, both of them became friends and began to wander together in search of delicious food. One night, the donkey and the fox were eating water-melons in a field. The water- melons were so tasty, that the donkey ate in a large quantity. Having eaten to his appetite, the donkey became so happy that he was compelled by an intense desire to sing. He told the fox that he was in such a good mood that he had to express his happiness in a melodious tone. ‘Don’t be a fool. If you sing, the people sleeping in and around this field will wake up and beat us black and blue with sticks,’ said the fox worriedly. `You are a dull fellow’, the donkey said hearing the words of fox. ‘Singing makes one happy and healthy. No matter what comes. I’ll definitely sing a song.” The fox became worried to see the donkey adamant to sing a song in the midst of the field, while the owner was still sleeping only a little distance away. Seeing his adamance, he said to the donkey, ‘Friend, wait a minute before you start first, let me jump over to the other side of the fence for my safety.’ Saying so the fox jumped over to the other side of the fence without losing a moment. The donkey began in his so-called melodious tone. Hearing, suddenly, a donkey braying in the field, the owner woke up from his sleep. He picked up his stick lying by his side and ran towards the donkey who was still braying happily. The owner of the field looked around and saw the loss caused by the donkey. He became very angry and beat him so ruthlessly that the donkey was physically incapacitated temporarily. He, somehow, managed to drag himself out of the field with great difficulty. The fox looked at the donkey and said in a sympathetic tone, T m sorry to see you in this pitiable condition. I had already warned you, but you didn’t listen to my advice.’ The donkey too realised his folly and hung his head in shame.Why did donkey want to sing ?
....

MCQ->In a 100 m race, A can beat B by 25 m and B can beat C by 4 m. In the same race, A can beat C by:....

MCQ->To beat around the bush means:....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.The passage seems to emphasize that the outside world has
....