We can go tomorrow, _? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. We can go tomorrow, _?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->" Making tomorrow Brighter " is the motto of....

QA->I .................. the manager at seven O' clock tomorrow morning. ....

QA->Tomorrow is a holiday..................... ....

QA->Teacher said to Jack : "Don"t be late again tomorrow". Choose the suitable sentence in indirect speech.....

QA->She …….. tomorrow to attend the wedding.(modal verb) ?....

MCQ-> Read the given information carefully and answer the questions below.The management of the national daily newspaper Tomorrow Digest decides to enhance its subscriber base through major changes in the style, layout, design and content of the paper. In order to make the content more amenable to the mindset of the growing younger population of the country, the paper decides to appoint a number of young and promising Associate Editors. For facilitating the appointment process, several selection criteria were finalized and provided to the selection panel, which are noted in the following. It was noted that in order to get selected, the candidates are required to fulfil, in addition to I, at least three of the following conditions.I. The age of the candidates must not be lower than 25 years, but should not cross 30 years. II. The candidate has secured 60 percent and above at her / his Graduation level. III. The candidate has obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in journalism with at least 55 percent marks. IV. The candidate has gained working experience of a minimum period of 2 years in a daily newspaper with responsibility of regular writing assignments. V. The candidate has been awarded at state-level for her / his articles published in state-level English daily.If, however, it is observed that some candidates fulfil only two conditions from II-V, but does not fulfil:(a) V above, but he /she has already gathered an experience of 5 years in a news agency, the case of the candidate will be referred to the Managing Editor of Tomorrow Digest. (b) II above, but he /she holds a Post Graduate Diploma in journalism with 80 percent marks, the case of the candidate will be referred to the Chairman of Tomorrow Digest. (c) III above, but he /she has completed Graduation with 70 percent marks, the case of the candidate will be referred to the Editor of Tomorrow Digest.All the information about a few candidates applying for the Associate Editor position provided in the following are dated on August 31, 2014. Based on the information furnished, decide in each case, which of the following course of action the selection panel should adopt, from the available options. You are not to assume any information.Sarangsh Malhotra has graduated from Agra University with 66 percent marks and later has completed PG Diploma in Journalism from Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi with 71 percent. After completion of the PG Diploma programme, she joined Galaxy News at Jaipur on Christmas Eve in 2006. She received an award from the hands of the Governor of Rajasthan for her series of investigative articles on January 26, 2008, a day which coincided with her twenty-fifth birthday. During June next year, she joined in a corporate house and is working there since then.
....

MCQ-> YOU HAVE ONE BRIEF PASSAGE WITH LIVE QUESTIONS. READ THE PASSAGE CAREFULLY AND CHOOSE THE BEST ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION OUT OF THE FOUR ALTERNATIVES. In the technological systems of tomorrow-fast fluid and self-regulating-machines will deal with the flow of physical materials men with the flow of information and insight. Machines will increasingly perform tasks. Machines and men both instead of being concentrated in gigantic factories and factory cities will be scattered across the globe linked together by amazingly sensitive near-instantaneous communications. Human work will move out of the factory and mass office into the community and the home. Machines will be synchronized as some already are to the billionth of a second men will be synchronized. The factory whistle will vanish. Even the clock “the key machine of the modern industrial age” as Lewis Mumford called it a generation ago will lose some of its power over humans as distinct from purely technological affairs. Simultaneously the organisation needed to control technology shift from bureaucracy to Democracy from permanence to transience and from a concern with the present to a focus on the future. In such a world the most valued attributes of the industrial age become handicaps. The technology of tomorrow requires not millions of lightly lettered men ready to work in unison at endlessly repetitive jobs it requires not men who take orders in unblinking fashion aware that the price of bread is mechanical submission to authority but men who can make critical judgments who can weave their way through novel environments who are quick to spot new relationships in the rapidly changing reality. It requires men who in C.P. Snow s compelling terms “have the future in their bones"The technological system of tomorrow will be marked by?
....

MCQ->Sita told her friend Gita "I am leaving today and will reach Mumbai tomorrow for my exams starting the day after tomorrow, which is Friday". What day is tomorrow in this conversation?....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....

MCQ->"He will come tomorrow". She told me that he............tomorrow.....