A Tiebreaker is an additional contest or period of play designed to establish a winner among tied contestants. Which situation below is the best example of a Tiebreaker? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. A Tiebreaker is an additional contest or period of play designed to establish a winner among tied contestants. Which situation below is the best example of a Tiebreaker?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Which film declared as the best film in the last 96 years after an innovative on-line contest “T20 of Indian Cinema” launched by the Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG), co-host of the International Film festival of India (IFFI), in commemoration of the IFFI-09?....

QA->Among the chief ministers listed below who did not complete the term of five years?....

QA->Who is the first indian Asian Tennis Champion, WTA champion, Third round winner in Grand Slam Tournament, Grand slam tournament winner Match winner in U.S. open, Youngest awardee of Padamshree ?....

QA->The first Asian Tennis Champion, WTA champion, Third round winner in Grand Slam Tournament, Grand slam tournament winner Match winner in U.S. open, Youngest awardee of Padamshree ?....

QA->In which situation a chemical reaction does not?....

MCQ->A Tiebreaker is an additional contest or period of play designed to establish a winner among tied contestants. Which situation below is the best example of a Tiebreaker?....

MCQ-> Study the given information carefully and answer the given questions : Seven plays -A, B, C, D, E, F and G – are to be held on seven consecutive days (starting on Monday and ending on Sunday) not necessarily in the same order. Only one play can be held on one day. Only two plays will be held after play G. Only two plays will be held between play F and play G. Only three plays will be held between play B and play E. Play B will not be held on Sunday. Play A will be held before play D and play C (not necessarily immediately before). Play C will be held after play D (not necessarily immediately after).Play D will be held on which day?
....

MCQ-> Answer the questions given below based on the following data:A total of 250 students of a class play different games viz. Football, Hockey, Chess, Badminton, Table Tennis and Tennis. The ratio of girls to boys in the class of 250 is 13 : 12 respectively. 50% of the girls play Table Tennis and Badminton only. 20% of the boys play Football, Hockey and Tennis only. 15% of the boys play Tennis and Chess only. The ratio of number of girls to boys playing Tennis and Chess only is 2 : 3 respectively. 30% of the girls play Hockey and Chess only. 10% of the girls play Chess, Badminton and Table Tennis only. The remaining girls play only Football. Boys playing Table Tennis and Badminton only is 20% of the girls playing the same. 40% of the boys play only Football. The remaining boys play only Chess.What is the total number of students playing Football?
....

MCQ-> These questions are based on the following information:Children in a class play only one or two or all the three games badminton, football and cricket. 5 children play only cricket, 8 children play only football and 7 children play only badminton. 3 children play only two games badminton and football, 4 children play only two games. Cricket and football and another 4 children play only two games badminton and cricket. 2 children play all the three games.In all how many children play football ?
....

MCQ-> My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract. In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of government. Rather, the idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice, I shall call justice as fairness. Thus, we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty determines the principles of justice.In ‘justice as fairness’, the original position is not an actual historical state of affairs. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.Justice as fairness begins with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions. Then, having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact laws, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. Moreover, assuming that the original position does determine a set of principles, it will then be true that whenever social institutions satisfy these principles, those engaged in them can say to one another that they are cooperating on terms to which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relations with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principles. The general recognition of this fact would provide the basis for a public acceptance of the corresponding principles of justice. No society can, of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to being a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair.A just society, as conceptualized in the passage, can be best described as:
....