All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Ci... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 is
  • a)
    1
  • b)
  • c)
    Innity
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the...
Is the condition for n = 2 and this will go on for higher values of n as can be seen the area between square 1 and circle 1 is nite ,   square 2 and circle 2 is nite and so on sum of all these areas for a higher value of n will become innite
Therefore our answer is option 'C' 
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Ecocritics ask questions such as - What is the role of the landscape in this work? Are the underlying values of the text ecologically sound? What is nature writing? Indeed, what is meant by the word ‘nature’? Should the examination of place be a distinctive category, much like class, gender and race? What is our perception of wilderness, and how has this perception varied throughout history? Are current environmental issues accurately represented or even mentioned in our popular culture and in modern literature? Can the principles of ecology be applied to poetry? Does gender affect the way one perceives and writes about nature? What can other disciplines - such as history, philosophy, ethics, and psychology - contribute?William Rueckert may have been the first person to use the term ecocriticism. In 1978, Rueckert published an essay titled “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” His intent was to focus on “the application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature.” Ecologically minded individuals and scholars have been publishing progressive works of eco theory and criticism since the explosion of environmentalism in the late 1960s and 1970s. However, because there was no organized movement to study the “greener” side of literature, these important works were scattered and categorized under a litany of different subject headings: pastoralism, human ecology, regionalism, American Studies, and so on. British Marxist critic Raymond Williams, for example, wrote a seminal critique of pastoral literature, The Country and the City’ (1973), which spawned two decades of leftist suspicion of the ideological evasions of the genre - its habit of making the work of rural labour disappear, for example - even though Williams himself observed that the losses lamented in pastoral might be genuine ones, and went on to profess a decidedly green socialism. Another early ecocritical text, Joseph Meeker’s The Comedy of Survival’ (1974), proposed a version of an argument that was later to dominate ecocriticism and environmental philosophy: that environmental crisis is caused primarily by a cultural tradition in the West of separation of culture from nature, and elevation of the latter to moral predominance. Such ‘anthropocentrism’ is identified in the tragic conception of a hero whose moral struggles are more important than mere biological survival, whereas the science of animal ethology, Meeker avers, shows that a 'comic mode' of muddling through and making love not war has superior ecological value. In later, 'second wave' ecocriticism, Meeker's adoption of an eco philosophical position with apparent scientific sanction as a measure of literary value tended to prevail over Williams's ideological-historical critique of the shifts in a literary genre's representation of nature.As Cheryll Glotfelty noted in The Ecocriticism Reader, “One indication of the disunity of the early efforts is that these critics rarely cited one another’s work; they didn’t know that it existed ... Each was a single voice howling in the wilderness.” Nevertheless, the reasons why ecocriticism - unlike feminist and Marxist criticisms - failed to crystallise into a coherent movement in the late 1970s, and indeed only did so in the USA in the 1990s, would be an interesting question for historical research.In the mid-eighties, scholars began to work collectively to establish ecocriticism as a genre, primarily through the work of the Western Literature Association in which the revaluation of nature writing as a non-fictional literary genre could function as: a fillip to the regional literature in which it had prominence; a counterbalance to the mania for 'cultural constructionism' in the literary academy; and a moral imperative in the face of mounting environmental destruction.By comparison with other 'political' forms of criticism, there has been relatively little dispute about the moral and philosophical aims of ecocriticism, although its scope has broadened rapidly from nature writing, Romantic poetry and canonical literature to take in film, TV, theatre, animal stories, architectures, scientific narratives and an extraordinary range of literary texts. At the same time, ecocriticism has pilfered methodologies and theoretically-informed approaches liberally from other fields of literary, social and scientific study.Glotfelty's working definition in The Ecocriticism Reader is that "ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment" (xviii), and one of the implicit goals of the approach is to recoup professional dignity for what Glotfelty calls the "undervalued genre of nature writing" (xxxi). Lawrence Buell defines “‘ecocriticism’ ... as [a] study of the relationship between literature and the environment conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis” (430, n.20)More recently, in an article that extends ecocriticism to Shakespearean studies, Estok argues that ecocriticism is more than “simply the study of Nature or natural things in literature; rather, it is any theory that is committed to effecting change by analyzing the function - thematic, artistic, social, historical, ideological, theoretical, or otherwise - of the natural environment, or aspects of it, represented in documents (literary or other) that contribute to material practices in material worlds”. Ecocritics ask questions such as - What is the role of the landscape in this work? Are the underlying values of the text ecologically sound? What is nature writing? Indeed, what is meant by the word ‘nature’? Should the examination of place be a distinctive category, much like class, gender and race? What is our perception of wilderness, and how has this perception varied throughout history? Are current environmental issues accurately represented or even mentioned in our popular culture and in modern literature? Can the principles of ecology be applied to poetry? Does gender affect the way one perceives and writes about nature? What can other disciplines - such as history, philosophy, ethics, and psychology - contribute?William Rueckert may have been the first person to use the term ecocriticism. In 1978, Rueckert published an essay titled “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” His intent was to focus on “the application of ecology and ecological concepts to the study of literature.” Ecologically minded individuals and scholars have been publishing progressive works of eco theory and criticism since the explosion of environmentalism in the late 1960s and 1970s. However, because there was no organized movement to study the “greener” side of literature, these important works were scattered and categorized under a litany of different subject headings: pastoralism, human ecology, regionalism, American Studies, and so on. British Marxist critic Raymond Williams, for example, wrote a seminal critique of pastoral literature, The Country and the City' (1973), which spawned two decades of leftist suspicion of the ideological evasions of the genre - its habit of making the work of rural labour disappear, for example - even though Williams himself observed that the losses lamented in pastoral might be genuine ones, and went on to profess a decidedly green socialism.Another early ecocritical text, Joseph Meeker's The Comedy of Survival' (1974), proposed a version of an argument that was later to dominate ecocriticism and environmental philosophy: that environmental crisis is caused primarily by a cultural tradition in the West of separation of culture from nature, and elevation of the latter to moral predominance. Such 'anthropocentrism' is identified in the tragic conception of a hero whose moral struggles are more important than mere biological survival, whereas the science of animal ethology, Meeker avers, shows that a 'comic mode' of muddling through and making love not war has superior ecological value. In later, 'second wave' ecocriticism, Meeker's adoption of an ecophilosophical position with apparent scientific sanction as a measure of literary value tended to prevail over Williams's ideological-historical critique of the shifts in a literary genre's representation of nature.As Cheryll Glotfelty noted in The Ecocriticism Reader, “One indication of the disunity of the early efforts is that these critics rarely cited one another’s work; they didn’t know that it existed... Each was a single voice howling in the wilderness.” Nevertheless, the reasons why ecocriticism - unlike feminist and Marxist criticisms - failed to crystallise into a coherent movement in the late 1970s, and indeed only did so in the USA in the 1990s, would be an interesting question for historical research. In the mid-eighties, scholars began to work collectively to establish ecocritism as a genre, primarily through the work of the Western Literature Association in which the revaluation of nature writing as a non-fictional literary genre could function as: a fillip to the regional literature in which it had prominence; a counterbalance to the mania for 'cultural constructionism' in the literary academy; and a moral imperative in the face of mounting environmental destruction.By comparison with other 'political' forms of criticism, there has been relatively little dispute about the moral and philosophical aims of ecocriticism, although its scope has broadened rapidly from nature writing, Romantic poetry and canonical literature to take in film, TV, theatre, animal stories, architectures, scientific narratives and an extraordinary range of literary texts. At the same time, ecocriticism has pilfered methodologies and theoretically-informed approaches liberally from other fields of literary, social and scientific study.Glotfelty's working definition in The Ecocriticism Reader is that "ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment" (xviii), and one of the implicit goals of the approach is to recoup professional dignity for what Glotfelty calls the "undervalued genre of nature writing" (xxxi). Lawrence Buell defines “‘ecocriticism’ ... as [a] study of the relationship between literature and the environment conducted in a spirit of commitment to environmentalist praxis” (430, n.20). More recently, in an article that extends ecocriticism to Shakespearean studies, Estok argues that ecocriticism is more than “simply the study of Nature or natural things in literature; rather, it is any theory that is committed to effecting change by analyzing the function - thematic, artistic, social, historical, ideological, theoretical, or otherwise - of the natural environment, or aspects of it, represented in documents (literary or other) that contribute to material practices in material worlds”.What does the word ‘anthropocentrism’ refer to in this passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:Eight dancers were invited as guests in a dance school on different dates of the same year. The number of days between the dates on which any two consecutive guests were invited is more than 5 days but less than 9 days (for example, if P was a guest on 7 November and Q was the guest immediately after P, then Q will be the guest on 14, 15 or 16 November). Each guest was given a bouquet of flowers and the flowers were among roses, lotuses, orchids, lilacs, lilies, camellias, lavenders and chrysanthemums. No two guests were invited on the same day or given the same flowers.The first guest was invited on 25 June. Three guests were invited between A and B such that A was invited before B. A was given lilacs. There were 13 days in between the dates on which B and O were invited. The one who was invited immediately before O was given orchids. O was not the last guest to be invited. The one who was invited immediately after R was given lilies. R was invited before B. O was not given lilies. There were 14 days in between the dates on which X and the one who was given roses were invited. T was not given roses. There were 8 days in between the dates on which T was invited and the guest immediately before him was invited. The one who was given camellias was invited as a guest on 11 August. H and X were invited in the same month. H was invited before 19 August. T was invited immediately before the one who was given lotuses. There were 7 days in between the dates on which A and the one who was given chrysanthemums were invited. There were more than 7 days in between the dates on which N and the one who was given roses were invited. R was not invited in June.NOTE: The bouquets were given to the guests such that no two consecutive guests were given flowers whose names start with the letter L.Q.Who was invited immediately before the one who was given chrysanthemums?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Scientism has left humanity in our technical mastery of inanimate nature, but improvised us in our quest for an answer to the riddle of the universe and of our existence in it. Scientism has done worse than that with respect to our status as social beings, that is, to our life with our fellow human beings. The quest for the technical mastery of social life, comparable to our mastery over nature, did not find scientism at a loss for an answer: reason suggested that physical nature and social life were fundamentally alike and therefore proposed identical methods for their domination. Since reason in the form of causality reveals itself most plainly in nature, nature became the model for the social world and the natural sciences the image of what the social sciences one day would be. According to scientism, there was only one truth, the truth of science, and by knowing it, humanity would know all. This was, however, a fallacious argument, its universal acceptance initiated an intellectual movement and a political technique which retarded, rather than furthered, human mastery of the social world.The analogy between the natural and social worlds is mistaken for two reasons. On the one hand human action is unable to model the social world with the same degree of technical perfection that is possible in the natural world. On the other hand, the very notion that physical nature is the embodiment of reason from which the analogy between natural and social worlds derives, is invalidated by modern scientific thought itself.Physical nature, as seen by the practitioner of science consists of a multitude of isolated facts over which human action has complete control. We know that water boils at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit and, by exposing water to this temperature, we can make it boil at will. All practical knowledge of physical nature and all control over it are essentially of the same kind.Scientism proposed that the same kind of knowledge and of control held true for the social world. The search for a single cause, in the social sciences, was but a faithful copy of the method of the physical sciences. Yet in the social sphere, the logical coherence of the natural sciences finds no adequate object and there is no single cause by the creation of which one can create a certain effect at will. Any single cause in the social sphere can entail an indefinite number of different effects, and the same effect can spring from an indefinite number of different effects, and the same effect can spring from an indefinite number of different causes.Q. Which of the following statements about scientism is best supported by the passage?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Scientism has left humanity in our technical mastery of inanimate nature, but improvised us in our quest for an answer to the riddle of the universe and of our existence in it. Scientism has done worse than that with respect to our status as social beings, that is, to our life with our fellow human beings. The quest for the technical mastery of social life, comparable to our mastery over nature, did not find scientism at a loss for an answer: reason suggested that physical nature and social life were fundamentally alike and therefore proposed identical methods for their domination. Since reason in the form of causality reveals itself most plainly in nature, nature became the model for the social world and the natural sciences the image of what the social sciences one day would be. According to scientism, there was only one truth, the truth of science, and by knowing it, humanity would know all. This was, however, a fallacious argument, its universal acceptance initiated an intellectual movement and a political technique which retarded, rather than furthered, human mastery of the social world.The analogy between the natural and social worlds is mistaken for two reasons. On the one hand human action is unable to model the social world with the same degree of technical perfection that is possible in the natural world. On the other hand, the very notion that physical nature is the embodiment of reason from which the analogy between natural and social worlds derives, is invalidated by modern scientific thought itself.Physical nature, as seen by the practitioner of science consists of a multitude of isolated facts over which human action has complete control. We know that water boils at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit and, by exposing water to this temperature, we can make it boil at will. All practical knowledge of physical nature and all control over it are essentially of the same kind.Scientism proposed that the same kind of knowledge and of control held true for the social world. The search for a single cause, in the social sciences, was but a faithful copy of the method of the physical sciences. Yet in the social sphere, the logical coherence of the natural sciences finds no adequate object and there is no single cause by the creation of which one can create a certain effect at will. Any single cause in the social sphere can entail an indefinite number of different effects, and the same effect can spring from an indefinite number of different effects, and the same effect can spring from an indefinite number of different causes.Q. In the passage, the author is most concerned with doing which of the following?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Let A1 be a square whose side is a metres. Circle C1 circumscribes the square A1 such that all its vertices are on C1. Another square A2 circumscribes C1. Circle C2 circumscribes A2, and A3 circumscribes C2, and so on. If DN is the area between the square AN and the circle CN, where N is a natural number, then the ratio of the sum of all DN to D1 isa)1b)c)Innityd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup