Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Related Questions

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?
A document was in the joint possession of X and Y. In a suit between Y and Z, Z requested the court for the discovery of that document. Y informed the court about the nature of the document and also stated that X is not consenting to produce the document. Z requested the court to compel Y for the production of the document as it is in the joint possession. Decide whether the court will compel Y for the production of the document.
Assertion (A): A gives B a receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered for the payment. The evidence is admissible.
Reason (R): A receipt is not a contract or grant in respect of which oral evidence is barred.
Read the passage carefully and choose thebest answer to each question out of the four alternativesand click the button corresponding to it. To know language is to be able to speak it; even a childwho does not yet attend school can speak his or herlanguage. In order to speak a language it is important tolisten to it and to read a few pages in it everyday. A childpicks up language and learns to talk just as (s)he learnsto walk. Walking and talking comes naturally to a child asit grows. In our country, a child may grow up speakingmore than one language, if these languages are spoken inthe home and in the neighbourhood. we call this multilingualism. A child speaks a language or languagesmuch before (s)he starts going to school. To know alanguage then is first of all to be able to speak it as easilyand naturally as a tree year old child does. Later on thechild will learn to read and write in that language. In orderto read and write in a language, one has to speak it. But itis possible to speak a language but not able to read orwrite in it. A baby does not speak until it is nine monthsold but it understands a few words at six months of age.It has been listening ever since it was born, and even alittle before that. So the first strategy in speaking alanguage is to listen. It is necessary for one to __________ the language before(s)he writes in that language.
Oral evidence of fact invalidating the document is admissible under
Oral account of the contents of a document is admissible
Read the passage carefully and choose thebest answer to each question out of the four alternativesand click the button corresponding to it. To know language is to be able to speak it; even a childwho does not yet attend school can speak his or herlanguage. In order to speak a language it is important tolisten to it and to read a few pages in it everyday. A childpicks up language and learns to talk just as (s)he learnsto walk. Walking and talking comes naturally to a child asit grows. In our country, a child may grow up speakingmore than one language, if these languages are spoken inthe home and in the neighbourhood. we call thismultilingualism. A child speaks a language or languagesmuch before (s)he starts going to school. To know alanguage then is first of all to be able to speak it as easilyand naturally as a tree year old child does. Later on thechild will learn to read and write in that language. In orderto read and write in a language, one has to speak it. But itis possible to speak a language but not able to read orwrite in it. A baby does not speak until it is nine monthsold but it understands a few words at six months of age.It has been listening ever since it was born, and even alittle before that. So the first strategy in speaking alanguage is to listen. To know a language one must be able to?