Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

Rules of inference are<br>1. applied when the main operators are in use.<br>2. nine in number.<br>3. applied only to entire statements.<br>4. not applied to entire statements.<br>Select the correct answer:

Correct Answer: 1, 2 and 3

You are the administrator of eight SQL Server 2000 computers. You configure alerts on each server so that various problem conditions will be reported if they occur.You create 20 operators on one of the servers. You configure these operators by using the e-mail and pager contact information for the employees in your department. You configure the alerts on the server to send e-mail messages and pager messages to the appropriate operators.You need to configure the same 20 operators on the other seven servers. You want to do this with a minimum amount of administrative time.What should you do?

A state government granted licences to certain private operators to run stage carriages and contract carriages. The stage carriages could run only from one fixed point to another with fixed passengers without any right to pick up passengers en route. No such restrictions were imposed on contract carriages that were required to pay higher rates of tax than stage carriage operators. The contract carriage operators challenge the discriminatory nature of tax imposed on them. In respect of the above which one of the following is correct?

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?

Consider the postfix expression 4 5 6 a b 7 8 a c, where a, b, c are operators. Operator a has higher precedence over operators b and c. Operators b and c are right associative. Then, equivalent infix expression is

In a C expression using assignment operators, relational operators and arithmetic operators, the hierarchy of operations (in the absence of parenthesis) is

The following question is based on the given data for an examination. A. Candidates appeared 10500 B. Passed in all the five subjects 5685 C. Passed in three subjects only 1498 D. Passed in two subjects only 1250 E. Passed in one subject only 835 F. Failed in English only 78 G. Failed in Maths only 275 H. Failed in Physics only 149 I. Failed in Chemistry only 147 J. Failed in Biology only 221 How many candidates passed in at least four subjects ?

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. Just as space permeates everything in the universe, love permeates every part, every aspect of creation. If there is one answer to the question, “How and why doesthis world exist?” the answer, in one word, is Love. Rather, the answer is Pure Love, since the word love has lost its meaning. Your very existence is an expression of pure unconditional love of the Source (you may call it Consciousness, Creator, God, Divine Self). This is the truth of your being.True love transcends both love and hatred. It is unconditional, unquestioning, boundless, unchanging love. It is overflowing love of the Source for the Source throughall of creation. True love is way beyond the personalized love that two or more individuals assert on one another. Personalized love, though apparently selfless, is rooted in desiresand conditional satisfaction. We have been brought up in a society that judges love based on conditions. We have been made to believe that we can receive love only when we fit into peoplesexpectations. If we are not good enough, we will be deprived of love. These beliefs have influenced the collective psyche of families, groups, communities, and societies since generations to such an extent that love has been reduced tofear of denial. We need to shift from the paradigm of false conditional love to the essence of pure unconditional love . The experience of true love comes with surrender of the false I, in letting go of the feeling of separateness. Without this sacrifice, it is not possible to attain divinelove. When this separate I is discarded, you embrace everything in oneness and catch a glimpse of pure love. True love can be experienced only through giving, not by demanding. People who exist in your life are not here to love you. They are here to remind you that you arethe Source of Love. By knowing that you are the Source of love, you can love yourself, instead of waiting to receive love from the world. Ask yourself, “Why do I need an agent to love myself?” Waiting for the world to love you, is like hiring an agent to love yourself! It is time for you to honor yourself as the Source of love. You have undertaken this human journey to realize and express the boundless love that you truly are. According to the passage, which of the following statement is not TRUE?

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?