A man of strawa)A man of no substanceb)A very active person c)A worthy fellowd)An unreasonable personCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Verbal Exam > Verbal Questions > A man of strawa)A man of no substanceb)A very...

A man of straw

a)
A man of no substance
b)
A very active person
c)
A worthy fellow
d)
An unreasonable person

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

A man of strawa)A man of no substanceb)A very active person c)A worthy...

Ans.

Option (a)

A man of straw: a man whose character is weak and who lacks definite beliefs.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

A man of strawa)A man of no substanceb)A very active person c)A worthy...

A man of straw is a phrase used to describe someone who is said to have no substance or worth. It is used to indicate that the person lacks strength, integrity, or reliability. Let's break down the meaning of this phrase and explore why option A, "a man of no substance," is the correct answer.

Meaning of "A man of straw":
A man of straw is an idiomatic expression that originated in the 16th century. In its literal sense, it refers to a scarecrow made of straw, which is used to frighten away birds from crops. The scarecrow is lifeless, lacking substance, and incapable of fulfilling its purpose beyond its appearance.

Metaphorical Meaning:
In a figurative sense, when someone is referred to as a man of straw, it means that they are like a scarecrow - they may appear to be significant or influential, but in reality, they lack substance or worth. This phrase is often used to describe individuals who are weak, unreliable, or lacking in moral or intellectual depth.

Explanation of the options:
a) A man of no substance: This option accurately captures the essence of the idiom. It suggests that a man of straw lacks substance or worth, aligning with the metaphorical meaning of the phrase.

b) A very active person: This option does not accurately represent the meaning of the idiom. The phrase "a man of straw" does not imply being very active; rather, it implies the opposite - someone who lacks substance or reliability.

c) A worthy fellow: This option is not correct. The phrase "a man of straw" suggests the opposite of being worthy. It indicates that the person lacks value or worth.

d) An unreasonable person: This option does not accurately capture the meaning of the idiom. While a man of straw may not be reasonable, the phrase itself does not specifically imply unreasonableness. It primarily conveys the lack of substance or worth.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the phrase "a man of straw" is used to describe someone who lacks substance, worth, integrity, or reliability. Option A, "a man of no substance," is the correct answer as it accurately represents the metaphorical meaning of the phrase.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action.The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anothers wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obediencethe adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obediencea situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions.Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT false?

View answer

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action. The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another‘s wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obedience—the adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)—follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obedience—a situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following: Q.In the context of the points being made by the author in the passage, the phrase absence of compulsion (line 30) refers to

View answer

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action.The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anothers wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obediencethe adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obediencea situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions.Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Which of the following findings would serve to most WEAKEN the authors claim in the passage about obedience to authority?

View answer

A black sheep