Which of the following has the weakest intermolecular forces ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which of the following has the weakest intermolecular forces ?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Sri Lanka"s armed forces chief who has resigned from his post just months after helping secure the defeat of the Tamil Tiger rebels?....

QA->Top Maoist leader who has been killed in an encounter with security forces at Burishol village in Junglemahal area of West Bengal?....

QA->Which state government decided to withdraw Armed Forces Special powers Act (AFSPA) from the state?....

QA->Which countries decided to invest $600 million to set up a joint venture (JV) to produce a medium lift transport aircraft for their armed forces?....

QA->Countries which have signed a historic peace agreement recently ending a century of hostility – hostility that stemmed from the World War One mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman forces?....

MCQ->Which of the following has the weakest intermolecular forces ?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the given questions. After the Second World War, the leaders of the Western world tried to build institutions to prevent the conflicts of the preceding decades from recurring. They wanted to foster both prosperity and interdependence, to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. Their work bore fruit. Expanded global trade has raised incomes around the world. While globalisation is sometimes portrayed as a corporate plot against the workers; that was not how it was seen before 1914. British trade unions were in favour of free trade, which kept down food prices for their members and also opened up markets for the factories in which they worked. Yet, as the Brexit vote demonstrates globalisation now seems to be receding. Most economists have been blindsided by the backslash. Free trade can be a hard sell politically. The political economy of trade is treacherous. Its benefits, though substantial, are dilute, but its costs are often concentrated. This gives those affected a strong incentive to push for protectionism. Globalisation itself thus seems to create forces that erode political support for integration. Deeper economic integration required harmonisation of laws and regulations across countries. Differences in rules on employment contracts or product safety requirements, for instance, act as barriers to trade. Trade agreements like the TransPacific Partnership focus more on "nontariff barriers" than they do on tariff reduction. The net impact of this is likely to be that some individuals, consumers and businesses are not likely to be as benefitted as others and given rise to discontent. Thus the consequences of such trade agreements often run counter to popular preferences. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner, has warned that companies influence over trade rules harms workers and erodes support for trade liberalisation. Clumsy government efforts to compensate workers hurt by globalisation contributed to the global financial crisis, by facilitating excessive household borrowing, among other things. Researchers have also documented how the cost of America's growing trade with China has fallen disproportionately on certain American cities. Such costs perpetuate a cycle of globalisation. Periods of global integration and technological progress generate rising inequality, which inevitably triggers two countervailing forces, one beneficial and one harmful. On the one hand, governments tend to respond to rising inequality by increasing redistribution and investing in education, on the other, inequality leads to political upheaval and war. The first great era of globalisation, which ended in 1914, gave way to a long period of declining inequality, in which harmful forces played a bigger rise than beneficial ones. History might repeat itself, he warns. Such warnings do not amount to arguments against globalisation. As many economists are quick to note, the benefits of openness are massive. It is increasingly clear, however, that supporters of economic integration underestimated the risks both that big slices of society would feel left behind and that nationalism would continue to provide an alluring alternative. Either error alone might have undercut support for globalisation and the relative peace and prosperity it has brought in combination, they threaten to reverse it.What can be concluded from the example of Britain cited in the passage ?
....

MCQ->Which of the following terms of Vander Walls equation of state for a non-ideal gas accounts for intermolecular forces ?....

MCQ->Addition of plasticisers to polymers results in partial neutralisation of intermolecular forces of attraction between the macro-molecules thereby increasing its....

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----
....