Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

  1. Both II and III 
  2. Only II 
  3. Only III 
  4. None of I, II and III 
5 views

1 Answers

Option 3 : Only III 

Name of the Event  Place  Accused 
Alipur Bomb Conspiracy Case  Alipur, Calcutta  Aurobindo Ghosh 
Murder of Rand and Amherst  Poona Chapekar Brothers 
Murder of Curzon Wyllie  London  Madan Lal Dhingra 

 

5 views

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 course of action logically follow (s) for pursuing. Statement: Walmart has been eyeing Indian markets for years now – and its $16 billion worth majority stake in Flipkart has finally given it the opportunity it was looking for to bring its retail business to India. If Walmart were to build its own e-commerce network in the large and diverse Indian market, it would undoubtedly face many challenges. Since, Walmart isn’t an established e-commerce player, the option of growing by way of acquiring is attractive, allowing Walmart to profit from Flipkart’s presence and build on efficiency and scale in e-commerce.  Courses of action: I. Walmart’s leverage will allow the company to globally source cheap resources and sell their products into India at deep discounts. II. To compete with Walmart at competitive prices, sellers will have to operate at the same scale, which will be beyond the reach reach of many.  III. Walmart presently has a very small presence in India and Flipkart’s market share while significant, is not deemed large enough to cause concern to competition.?
1 Answers 6 Views
The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong’ arguments and which is/are ‘weak’ arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement: World’s largest beer maker Heineken NV, the majority partner of United Breweries with Vijay Mallya, is understood to have sought legal opinion over its right to appoint a chairman at the Indian company. Heineken and some of its advisers believe that the shareholder agreement between Mallya and the beer giant has become null and void after India’s Enforcement Directorate attached his shares as part of its legal action against the liquor baron. Which among the following arguments support the above statement in the best possible manner Arguments: I. UBL has stopped sharing confidential information with Mallya and has said that he is no longer privy to any strategic developments.  II. The board of UBL, India’s biggest beer company, had asked Mallya to either step down or appoint a nominee after the Securities and Exchange Board of India barred wilful defaulters from holding key board positions last year.  III. The company is functioning well and operations are in good shape but it is not good corporate governance to have an acting chairman for so long.?
1 Answers 7 Views