All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Verbal Exam  >  Verbal Questions  >  One of the US national security advisers ----... Start Learning for Free
One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.
  • a)
    had acknowledged / can be
  • b)
    acknowledges / might be
  • c)
    has acknowledged / could have been
  • d)
    acknowledged / must be
  • e)
     
    would acknowledge / will have been
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intell...
One of the US national security advisers has acknowledged there could have been better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intell...
Explanation:
The correct answer is option C: "has acknowledged / could have been."

- The sentence is talking about something that happened in the past (before the September 11 attacks), so we need to use a past tense.

- The phrase "before the September 11 attacks" indicates that the action of acknowledging better intelligence sharing occurred before a specific point in the past.

- The option "has acknowledged" is in the present perfect tense, which is used to describe past actions that have a connection to the present. In this case, the action of acknowledging better intelligence sharing in the past is relevant to the current situation.

- The option "could have been" is the conditional perfect tense, which is used to express something that was possible in the past. In this case, it implies that there was a possibility of better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks, but it did not happen.

- Combining "has acknowledged" and "could have been" gives us the correct tense and conditional aspect to express the idea that the national security adviser acknowledged the need for better intelligence sharing in the past, which was a possibility but did not occur.

- The other options are incorrect because they use tenses that do not match the context of the sentence or do not convey the correct meaning.

In summary, option C is the correct answer because it uses the appropriate tenses and expresses the idea that the national security adviser has acknowledged the possibility of better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ.The passage provides support for which of the following assertions?

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources. Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystemEven if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ. What is the main purpose of the author in writing the passage?

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources. Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem. Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions. Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the following Questions: In the context of the passage, the phrase external degradation (lines 8-9) refers to which of the following

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources. Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy.Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem. Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ.According to the passage, which of the following developments is most likely if environmental cooperation between the federal government and state governments does not improve?

One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2025 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Verbal. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Verbal Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice One of the US national security advisers ---- there ---- better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks.a)had acknowledged / can beb)acknowledges / might bec)has acknowledged / could have beend)acknowledged / must bee)would acknowledge / will have beenCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
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
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup