Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Related Questions

45% players played in 1st world cup out of which 25 players played in only 1st world cup. 57.5% players played in 2nd world cup out of which 45 players played in only 2nd world cup. 72.5% players played in 3rd world cup out of which 110 players played in only 3rd world cup. Find the players who played in both 1st world cup and 2nd world cup but not in 3rd world cup, if total number of players is 400.
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? What wrong with respect to India are the Europeans responsible for?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? According to the writer the responsibility of explaining the facts about India to Europeans rests with?
Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
A passage is given with five questions following it. Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given fouralternatives. He wasn't the first, nor would he be the last, but the wiry, bespectacled man from Gujarat is certainly the most famous of the world's peaceful political dissidents.Mohandas Gandhi – also affectionately known as Mahatma – led India's independence movement in the 1930s and 40s by speaking softly without carrying much ofa big stick, facing down the British colonialists with stirring speeches and non-violent protest. More than anything else, historians say, Gandhi proved that one manhas the power to take on an empire, using both ethics and intelligence. Urges Britain to quit India It is hard to imagine the thin, robed Gandhi working in the rough and tumble world of law, but Gandhi did get his start in politics as a lawyer in South Africa, where he supported the local Indian community's struggle for civil rights. Returning to India in 1915, he carried over his desire to improve the situation of the lower classes. Gandhi quickly became a leader within the Indian National Congress, a growing political party supporting independence, and traveled widely with the party to learnabout the local struggles of various Indian communities. It was during those travels that his legend grew among the Indian people, historians say. Gandhi was known as much for his wit and intelligence as for his piety. When he was arrested several more times over the years for his actions during the movement,Gandhi calmly fasted in prison, believing that his death would embarrass the British enough to spur independence, which had become the focus of his politics by1920. Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, kicked off in the early 1920s, called for Indians to boycott British goods and traditions and become self-reliant. His mostfamous protest came in 1930, when Gandhi led thousands of Indians on a 250-mile march to a coastal town to produce salt, on which the British had a monopoly. Which of the following can help one to "take on" an empire?
___ are a mountain range that runs almost parallel to the western coast of the Indian peninsula, and is one of the eight "hottest hotspots" of biological diversity in the world sometimes called the "Great Escarpment of India".
A passage is given with five questions following it. Read the passage carefully and select the best answer to each question out of the given fouralternatives. He wasn't the first, nor would he be the last, but the wiry, bespectacled man from Gujarat is certainly the most famous of the world's peaceful political dissidents.Mohandas Gandhi – also affectionately known as Mahatma – led India's independence movement in the 1930s and 40s by speaking softly without carrying much ofa big stick, facing down the British colonialists with stirring speeches and non-violent protest. More than anything else, historians say, Gandhi proved that one manhas the power to take on an empire, using both ethics and intelligence. Urges Britain to quit India It is hard to imagine the thin, robed Gandhi working in the rough and tumble world of law, but Gandhi did get his start in politics as a lawyer in South Africa, where he supported the local Indian community's struggle for civil rights. Returning to India in 1915, he carried over his desire to improve the situation of the lower classes. Gandhi quickly became a leader within the Indian National Congress, a growing political party supporting independence, and traveled widely with the party to learnabout the local struggles of various Indian communities. It was during those travels that his legend grew among the Indian people, historians say. Gandhi was known as much for his wit and intelligence as for his piety. When he was arrested several more times over the years for his actions during the movement,Gandhi calmly fasted in prison, believing that his death would embarrass the British enough to spur independence, which had become the focus of his politics by1920. Gandhi's non-cooperation movement, kicked off in the early 1920s, called for Indians to boycott British goods and traditions and become self-reliant. His mostfamous protest came in 1930, when Gandhi led thousands of Indians on a 250-mile march to a coastal town to produce salt, on which the British had a monopoly. According to the passage, British had a monopoly of producing which of the product?
Consider the following statements. Which of the following is true? I. The Black soils are generally clayey, deep and impermeable. II. They are rich in phosphorus, nitrogen and organic matter. III. Black Soils is also called as REGUR Soils IV. Crops like chilly, oil seeds, and jowar grow well in it