Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

The use of Third Country Nationals (TCNs) provides a number of advantages. Which of the following is not one of these advantages?

The use of Third Country Nationals (TCNs) provides a number of advantages. Which of the following is not one of these advantages? Correct Answer They are usually considerably cheaper

Related Questions

In the question below, are given a statement followed by three courses of actions numbered I, II and III. On the basis of the information given, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the suggested courses of action logically follow(s) for pursuing. Statement: Long-term investors may apply for the upcoming IPO of TCNS Clothing. The company’s unique positioning in the less crowded women’s wear segment, with dominant brands such as ‘W’, ‘Aurelia’ and ‘Wishful’, may attract strong interest from institutions. In the choppy markets, funds are increasingly finding more comfort with consumer companies that offer high growth visibility.  Courses of action: I. TCNS manufactures, markets and retails a portfolio of women’s branded apparel across brands ‘W’, ‘Aurelia’ and ‘Wishful’.  II. Besides, with a play on the rising spend by self-earning women, TCNS is likely to command a premium.  III. ‘Aurelia’, which has more contemporary designs, accounts for 33.7 per cent of revenues and has grown at 48 per cent, while ‘Wishful’, a premium occasion wear brand, accounts for 8.6 per cent and has grown at 40 per cent. 
Consider the following statements and identify which of the following are true? While calculating GDP, income generated by foreigners in a country is taken into consideration While calculating GDP, income generated by nationals of a country outside the country is taken into account While calculating GNP, income generated by foreigners in a country is taken into consideration While calculating GNP, income generated by nationals of a country outside the country is taken into account
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? 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? 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?
Study the information carefully and answer the questions given below: If we arrange the alphabets in the word "RATE" in the English alphabetical order, word "AERT" is formed. Then the third alphabet from the left in this word is "R". similarly, from the word "OPEN" we get - "ENOP" and the third alphabet from the left is "O". From the word "CHEF" we get - "CEFH" the third alphabet from the left "F". From the word "TOY" we get - "OTY" and the third alphabet from the left is "Y". From the word "EAT" we get - "AET" and the third alphabet from the left is "T" If we use all these letters, then a meaningful English word "FORTY" can be formed. Now find which of the following word set DOES NOT give a meaningful word in a similar way.
1. Expatriates are non-citizens of the countries in which they are working.
2. Third Country Nationals (TCN) are citizens of a country other than the parent or the host country.
There are two rows, each containing 3 numbers. Below are some rules to be used to get the resultant number for each row separately. Use the rule from left to right for each row and find the answer to the question. Rule: 1. If an even number is followed by an even number, then the first number will be subtracted from the second. 2. If an odd number is followed by an odd number, then both will be added. 3. If an odd number is followed by an even number, then the even number will be subtracted from the square of the odd number. 4. If an even number is followed by an odd number, then the odd number will be subtracted from the even number. Row I: 9,11, 34 Row II: 16, 9, 8 What is the difference between the resultant numbers in the first row and the second row
Three cars start from point A together and reach point B at equal intervals. Second car whose sped is less than third car but more than first car taken a u turn and starts its journey towards A whereas third car heads for point C which is 100 km away from point B. First car and third car meet each other at mid way of A and C after third car takes u turn from C. First car travels half the distance between A and B when second reaches B. The sum of speed of second car and third car is 100 kmh.  What is the difference between speed of third car and first car?