Puys join this RC thread for CAT 2014: đ
hello everone ! i wanted to ask which book or any online material ..if any ,should i use for daily practice of RCs or any other relevent material..
Since the Hawaiian Islands have never been connected to other land masses, the great variety of plants in Hawaii must be a result of the long-distance dispersal of seeds, a process that requires both a method of transport and an equivalence between the ecology of the source area and that of the recipient area. There is some dispute about the method of transport involved. Some biologists argue that ocean and air currents are responsible for the transport of plant seeds to Hawaii. Yet the results of flotation experiments and the low temperatures of air currents cast doubt on these hypotheses. More probable is bird transport, either externally, by accidental attachment of the seeds to feathers, or internally, by the swallowing of fruit and subsequent excretion of the seeds. While it is likely that fewer varieties of plant seeds have reached Hawaii externally than internally, more varieties are known to be adapted to external than to internal transport.
Does any one have e-book of "How to read better and faster:" by Norman Lewis?
In archaeology, as in the physical sciences, new discoveries frequently undermine accepted findings and give rise to new theories. This trend can be seen in the reaction to the recent discovery of a set of 3.3-million-year-old fossils in Ethiopia, the remains of the earliest well-preserved child ever found. The fossilized child was estimated to be about 3 years old at death, female, and a member of the Australopithecus afarensis species. The afarensis species, a major human ancestor, lived in Africa from earlier than 3.7 million to 3 million years ago. "Her completeness, antiquity and age at death make this find of unprecedented importance in the history of paleo-anthropology," said Zeresenay Alemseged, a noted paleo-anthropologist. Other scientists said that the discovery could reconfigure conceptions about the lives and capacities of these early humans.
Prior to this discovery, it had been thought that the afarensis species had abandoned the arboreal habitat of their ape cousins. However, while the lower limbs of this fossil supported findings that afarensis walked upright, its gorilla-like arms and shoulders suggested that it retained the ability to swing through trees. This has initiated a reexamination of many accepted theories of early human development. Also, the presence of a hyoid bone, a rarely preserved bone in the larynx that supports muscles of the throat, has had a tremendous impact on theories about the origins of speech. The fossil bone is primitive and more similar to that of apes than to that of humans, but it is the first hyoid
Each of the following is cited as a factor in the importance of the discovery of the fossils EXCEPT
A difficult readjustment in the scientistâs conception of duty is imperatively necessary. As Lord Adrain said in his address to the British Association, âunless we are ready to give up some of our old loyalties, we may be forced into a fight which might end the human raceâ. This matter of loyalty is the crux. Hitherto, in the East and in the West alike, most scientists, like most other people, have felt that loyalty to their own state is paramount. They have no longer a right to feel this. Loyalty to the human race must take its place. Everyone in the West will at once admit this as regards Soviet scientists. We are shocked that Kapitza who was Rutherfordâs favourite pupil, was willing when the Soviet government refused him permission to return to Cambridge, to place his scientific skill at the disposal of those who wished to spread communism by means of H-bombs. We do not so readily apprehend a similar failure of duty on our own side. I do not wish to be thought to suggest treachery, since that is only a transference of loyalty to another national state. I am suggesting a very different thing; that scientists the world over should join in enlightening mankind as to the perils of a great war and in devising methods for its prevention. I urge with all the emphasis at my disposal that this is the duty of scientists in East and West alike. It is difficult duty, and one likely to entail penalties for those who perform it. But after all it is the labours of scientists which have caused the danger and on this account, if on no other, scientists must do everything in their power to save mankind from the madness which they have made possible. Science from the dawn of history, and probably longer, has been intimately associated with war. I imagine that when our ancestors descended from the trees they were victorious over the arboreal conservatives because flints were sharper than coconuts. To come to more recent times, Archimedes was respected for his scientific defense of Syracuse against the Romans; Leonardo obtained employment under the Duke of Milan because of his skill in fortification, though he did mention in a postscript that he could also paint a bit. Galileo similarly derived an income from the Grant Duke of Tuscany because of his skill in calculating the trajectories of projectiles. In the French Revolution those scientists who were not guillotined devoted themselves to making new explosives. There is therefore no departure from tradition in the present day scientistâs manufacture of A-bombs and H-bomb. All that is new is the extent of their destructive skill. I do not think that men of science can cease to regard the disinterested pursuit of knowledge as their primary duty. It is true that new knowledge and new skills are sometimes harmful in their effects, but scientists cannot profitably take account of this fact since the effects are impossible to foresee. We cannot blame Columbus because the discovery of the Western Hemisphere spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere an appallingly devastating plague. Nor can we blame James Watt for the Dust Bowl although if there had been no steam engines and no railways the West would not have been so carelessly or so quickly cultivated To see that knowledge is wisely used in primarily the duty of statesmen, not of science; but it is part of the duty of men of science to see that important knowledge is widely disseminated and is not falsified in the interests of this or that propaganda. Scientific knowledge has its dangers; but so has every great thing. And over and beyond the dangers with which it threatens the present, it opens up, as nothing else can, the vision of a possible happy world, a world without poverty, without war, with little illness. And what is perhaps more than all, when science has mastered the forces which mould human character, it will be able to produce populations in which few suffer from destructive fierceness and in which the great majority regard other people, not as competitors, to be feared, but as helpers in a common task. Science has only recently begun to apply itself to human beings except in their purely physical aspect. Such science as exists in psychology and anthropology has hardly begun to affect political behaviour or private ethics. The minds of men remain attuned to a world that is fast disappearing. The changes in our physical environment require, if they are to bring well being, correlative changes in our beliefs and habits. If we cannot effect these changes, we shall suffer the fate of the dinosaurs, who could not live on dry land. I think it is the duty of science â I do not say of every individual man of science â to study the means by which we can adapt ourselves to the new world There are certain things that the world quite obviously needs; tentativeness, as opposed to dogmatism in our beliefs: an expectation of co-operation, rather than competition, in social relations, a lessening of envy and collective hatred These are things which education could produce without much difficulty. They are not things adequately south in the education of the present day. It is progress in the human sciences that we must look to undo the evils which have resulted from a knowledge of the physical world hastily and superficially acquired by populations unconscious of the changes in themselves that the new knowledge has made imperative. The road to a happier world than any known in the past lies open before us if atavistic destructive passion can be kept in leash while the necessary adaptations are made. Fears are inevitable in our time, but hopes are equally rational and far more likely to bear good fruit. We must learn to think rather less of the dangers to be avoided than of the good that will be within our grasp if we believe in it and let it dominate our thoughts. Science, whatever unpleasant consequences it may have by the way, is in its very nature a liberator, a liberator of bondage to physical nature and, in time to come a liberator from the weight of destructive passion. We are on the threshold of utter disaster or unprecedented glorious achievement. No previous age has been fraught with problems so momentous and it is to science that we must look for happy issue.
1. The duty of science, according to the author is :
(A) to realize the vision of a happy new world
(B) to pursue knowledge for its own sake
(C) to see that only such discoveries as conducive to the progress of humanity should be made
(D) to study the means by which we can adapt ourselves to the new world
2. Archimedes, Leonardo and Galileo have been mentioned to substantiate the statement that
(A) science has always been intimately associated with war
(B) from ancient times science has played a leading part in the life of man
(C) all learning has flourished only under the patronage of royalty and eminent personages
(D) in the past pursuit of knowledge was done for its own sake
3. The ground on which the author suggests that all scientists should join in educating mankind regarding the perils of a great war is that
(A) scientists being among the most learned among people, should take the lead in this process of education.
(B) it is the work of scientists which has led to this perilous situation and so they should do something to undo the mischief.
(C) science has always been associated with war and in the fitness of things, scientists should take the lead in trying to end it.
(D) all others like politicians and soldiers have vested interest in perpetuating war and by elimination, scientists alone may be trusted to work for its abolition.
4. In modern times, the crux of the matter as far as scientists are concerned is that
(A) their loyalty to the state should be declared in no uncertain terms.
(B) a readjustment in the scientistâs conception of duty is imperatively necessary.
(C) they should not object to stringent control by the state over their activities.
(D) they should assert their independence and refuse to subject themselves to any kind of control.
5. The instance of Kaptiza cited by the author goes to prove that
(A) every scientist has his price.
(B) in Soviet Russia, communists do not tolerate independent scientists.
(C) scientists, whether in the East or West, have hitherto felt that loyalty to their own state is paramount.
(D) scientists in the West have a higher sense of responsibility than their counterparts in the East.
6. Which among the following statements is not true according to the information provided in the passage?
(A) If there is no readjustment in the scientistâs conception of duty, the extinction of the human race by war is a distinctpossibility.
(B) Up till now, scientists all over the world have felt that loyalty to their own state is paramount
(C) It is the labours of scientists which have caused the danger of annihilation of mankind.
(D) The tradition up to now has been that scientists have been respected for their pursuit of knowledge and not for their part in devising potent weapons of destruction
7. The duty of the scientist, according to the passage, is
(A) to further the interests of his state with as much devotion as possible
(B) to pursue knowledge regardless of the consequences of their discoveries and inventions
(C) to see that important knowledge is widely disseminated and is not falsified in the interests of propaganda
(D) to refuse to serve national interests
8. The evils which have resulted from knowledge of the physical world can only be overcome by
(A) a more intensive pursuit of scientific knowledge
(B) making scientists more responsible to society
(C) adequate progress in the human sciences
(D) enlightening the general public about the evils
9. Science may be considered a liberator in the sense that :
(A) ultimately it may bring the nations of the world together
(B) it may make manâs life a great deal happier than what it is now
(C) it may free man from bondage to physical nature and the weight of destructive passions
(D) it may end the tyranny of age old beliefs and superstitions.
The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10-20 were the only criteria for establishing a reservationâs water rights, which of the following would be true?
"
. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands-i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation."
0 voters
60. The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
0 voters
Jon Clarkâs study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism. Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Bravermanâs analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the managerâs desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism. The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization. Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines âtechnologyâ in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from (50) the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: âWhen is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?â
122. Which of the following most accurately describes Clarkâs opinion of Bravermanâs position?
(A) He respects its wide-ranging popularity.
(B) He disapproves of its misplaced emphasis on the influence of managers.
(C) He admires the consideration it gives to the attitudes of the workers affected.
(D) He is concerned about its potential to impede the implementation of new technologies.
(E) He is sympathetic to its concern about the impact of modern technology on workers.
Jon Clarkâs study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Bravermanâs analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the managerâs desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines âtechnologyâ in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from (50) the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: âWhen is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?â
122. Which of the following most accurately describes Clarkâs opinion of Bravermanâs position?
Jon Clarkâs study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Bravermanâs analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the managerâs desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines âtechnologyâ in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from (50) the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: âWhen is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?â
122. Which of the following most accurately describes Clarkâs opinion of Bravermanâs position?
Â
 If translated into English, most of the ways economists talk among themselves would sound plausible enough to poets, journalists, businesspeople, and other thoughtful though noneconomical folk. Like serious talk anywhere-among boat designers and baseball fans, say -the talk is hard to follow when one has not made a habit of listening to it for a while. The culture of the conversation makes the words arcane. But the people in the unfamiliar conversation are not Martians. Underneath it all (the economist's favorite phrase) conversational habits are similar. Economics uses mathematical models and statistical tests and market arguments, all of which look alien to the literary eye. But looked at closely they are not so alien. They may be seen as figures of speech- metaphors, analogies, and appeals to authority. Figures of speech are not mere frills. They think for us. Someone who thinks of a market as an âinvisible handâ and the organization of work as a âproduction functionâ and his coefficients as being âsignificant,â as an economist does, is giving the language a lot of responsibility. It seems a good idea to look hard at his language. If the economic conversation were found to depend a lot on its verbal forms, this would not mean that economics would be not a science, or just a matter of opinion, or some sort of confidence game. Good poets, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about symbols; good historians, though not scientists, are serious thinkers about data. Good scientists also use language. What is more (though it remains to be shown) they use the cunning of language, without particularly meaning to. The language used is a social object, and using language is a social act. It requires cunning (or, if you prefer, consideration), attention to the other minds present when one speaks. The paying of attention to one's audience is called ârhetoric,â a word that I later exercise hard. One uses rhetoric, of course, to warn of a fire in a theatre or to arouse the xenophobia of the electorate. This sort of yelling is the vulgar meaning of the word, like the president's âheated rhetoricâ in a press conference or the âmere rhetoricâ to which our enemies stoop. Since the Greek flame was lit, though, the word has been used also in a broader and more amiable sense, to mean the study of all the ways of accomplishing things with language inciting a mob to lynch the accused, to be sure, but also persuading readers of a novel that its characters breathe, or bringing scholars to accept the better argument and reject the worse. The question is whether the scholar- who usually fancies himself an announcer of âresultsâ or a stater of âconclusionsâ free of rhetoric -speaks rhetorically. Does he try to persuade? It would seem so. Language, I just said, is not a solitary accomplishment. The scholar doesnât speak into the void, or to himself. He speaks to a community of voices. He desires to be heeded, praised, published, imitated, honored, en-nobeled. These are the desires. The devices of language are the means. Rhetoric is the proportioning of means to desires in speech. Rhetoric is an economics of language, the study of how scarce means are allocated to the insatiable desires of people to be heard. It seems on the face of it, a reasonable hypothesis that economists are like other people in being talkers, who desire listeners that they go to the library or the laboratory as much as when they go to the office on the polls. The purpose here is to see if this is true, and to see if it is useful to study the rhetoric of economic scholarship. The subject is scholarship. It is not the economy, or the adequacy of economic theory as a description of the economy, or even mainly the economistâs role in the economy. The subject is the conversation economists have among themselves, for purposes of persuading each other that the interest elasticity of demand for investment is zero or that the money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, though, the conclusions are of more than academic interest. The conversations of classicists or of astronomers rarely affect the lives of other people. Those of economists do so on a large scale. A well known joke describes a May Day parade through Red Square with the usual mass of soldiers, guided missiles, rocket launchers. At last come rank upon rank of people in gray business suits. A bystander asks, âWho are  those?â âAha!â comes the reply, âthose are economists: you have no idea what damage they can do!â Their conversations, do it.Â
 21. Based on your understanding of the passage, which of the following conclusions would you agree with:
0 voters
Â
Due to technical issues faced by the applicants and pending bank reconciliations during the last hour, the deadline has been extended to February 3rd, 2020 23:59 Hrs.
To complete your application, Click https://pingala.iitk.ac.in/MBADM-0/login
Please feel free to reach out to us for any admission related queries through our official admission information channels:
⢠For Technical/IT help, Contact: [email protected] or 0512-2596803/0512-2596805
⢠For MBA program/Admission process related queries, Contact: [email protected] or 0512-6796590/0512-6796409
⢠Official Facebook Group for Admissions 2020-2022: https://www.facebook.com/groups/363348497791271/
⢠Official Pagalguy Discussion Thread: https://www.pagalguy.com/.../official-iit-kanpur-mba-2019-202...
https://essaysnassignments.co.uk/ are the best dissertation writing service providers in UK that have all range of reasonable dissertation topics according to the scholarly disciplines.
knmds