Select the related word from the given alternatives. Colour : Red

1. Select the related word from the given alternatives. Colour : Red :: Language : ?

Write Comment

Comments

By: anil on 05 May 2019 02.28 am

The second term is a type of the first. Red is a colour. Similarly, English is a language.
=> Ans - (B)

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Colour blindness also known as Daltonism is a genetic disorder and It is the inability to distinguish between red colour and ?....

QA->A jar contains 10 red marbles and 30 green ones.How many red marbles must be added to the jar so that 60% of the marbles will be red?....

QA->Select the word meaning small branch:....

QA->Th Shan became nervous because it was the first speech delivered by him. Select one word for the words underlined: ....

QA->The court punished the traitor . Select the feminine gender of the word underlined. ....

MCQ-> Study the following information to answer the given questions : Eight people — L, M, 0, P, 9, R and S — are sitting around a circular table facing the centre. Each of them likes different colours, viz., Red Orange, Blue, Pink, Black, Purple, Brown and Green, but not necessarily in the same order. S is sitting second to the left of N. There are two persons between S and the person who likes Orange colour. M is second to the left of the person who likes Orange colour. L is the immediate neighbour of S. R is the third to the right of P. 0 likes Purple colour. The person who likes Pink colour is second to the right of P. The person who likes Brown colour is the third to the left of the person who likes Blue colour. Neither S nor P likes Brown colour. N likes neither Green nor Blue colour. L likes Red colour.Who among the following is second to the right of the person who likes Orange colour ?
....

MCQ-> Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently. For these reasons some cognitive scientists have described language as a psychological faculty, a mental organ, a neural system, and a computational module. But I prefer the admittedly quaint term “instinct”. It conveys the idea that people know how to talk in more or less the sense that spiders know how to spin webs. Web-spinning was not invented by some unsung spider genius and does not depend on having had the right education or on having an aptitude for architecture or the construction trades. Rather, spiders spin spider webs because they have spider brains, which give them the urge to spin and the competence to succeed. Although there are differences between webs and words, I will encourage you to see language in this way, for it helps to make sense of the phenomena we will explore. Thinking of language as an instinct inverts the popular wisdom, especially as it has been passed down in the canon of the humanities and social sciences. Language is no more a cultural invention than is upright posture. It is not a manifestation of a general capacity to use symbols: a three-year-old, we shall see, is a grammatical genius, but is quite incompetent at the visual arts, religious iconography, traffic signs, and the other staples of the semiotics curriculum. Though language is a magnificent ability unique to Homo sapiens among living species, it does not call for sequestering the study of humans from the domain of biology, for a magnificent ability unique to a particular living species is far from unique in the animal kingdom. Some kinds of bats home in on flying insects using Doppler sonar. Some kinds of migratory birds navigate thousands of miles by calibrating the positions of the constellations against the time of day and year. In nature’s talent show, we are simply a species of primate with our own act, a knack for communicating information about who did what to whom by modulating the sounds we make when we exhale. Once you begin to look at language not as the ineffable essence of human uniqueness hut as a biological adaptation to communicate information, it is no longer as tempting to see language as an insidious shaper of thought, and, we shall see, it is not. Moreover, seeing language as one of nature’s engineering marvels — an organ with “that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which justly excites our admiration,” in Darwin’s words - gives us a new respect for your ordinary Joe and the much-maligned English language (or any language). The complexity of language, from the scientist’s point of view, is part of our biological birthright; it is not something that parents teach their children or something that must be elaborated in school — as Oscar Wilde said, “Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.” A preschooler’s tacit knowledge of grammar is more sophisticated than the thickest style manual or the most state-of-the-art computer language system, and the same applies to all healthy human beings, even the notorious syntaxfracturing professional athlete and the, you know, like, inarticulate teenage skateboarder. Finally, since language is the product of a wellengineered biological instinct, we shall see that it is not the nutty barrel of monkeys that entertainercolumnists make it out to be.According to the passage, which of the following does not stem from popular wisdom on language?
....

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-> Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below: A, M, P, J, H D and K are seven students of a school. They study in Std. III, IV, and V with at least two in any one standard.Each of them has different choice of colour from blue, red, green, yellow, black, white and brown not necessarily in the same order. M studies in Std. IV with only D who likes red colour. A studies in Std. V and does not like either blue or green. H does not study in Std. V and likes yellow colour. P and J study in the same Std. but not with A. None of these who study in Std.III likes white.The one who likes black studies in Std. IV. J likes brown colour. P does not like blue colour.Which colour does P like ?
....

MCQ-> Answer the questions based on the following information. In a motor race competition certain rules are given for the participants to follow. To control direction and speed of the motorists, guards are placed at different signal points with caps of different colour. Guard with red cap indicates the direction of participant’s movement and guards with green cap indicates the speed of the participant’s movement. At any signal point presence of three guards, two guards and one guard with red cap means the participant must stop, turn left and turn right respectively. Signal points with three guards, two guards and one guard with green cap means the participants must move at 10, 4 and 2 km/hour respectively. Kartikay, one of the participants, starts at a point where his car was heading towards north and he encountered signals as follows: at start point one guard with green cap; after half an hour two guards with red cap and two guards with green cap at first signal; after fifteen minutes one guard with red cap at second signal; after half an hour one guard with red cap and three guards with green caps at third signal; after 24 minutes two guard with red cap and two guards with green cap at fourth signal; after 15 minutes three guard with red cap at fifth signal. (Time mentioned in each case is applicable after crossing the previous signal).Total distance travelled by Kartikay from starting point till last signal is:
....