Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 > Ever since the use of natural gas became wide...

Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isn't ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.

a)
as / as
b)
such / as
c)
so / that
d)
more / than
e)
enough / to

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- ...

Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isn't such a polluted city as it was ten years ago.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- ...

Explanation:

The correct answer is option B, "such / as". This is because the sentence is comparing the level of pollution in London now with the level of pollution ten years ago. The phrase "such as" is used to introduce examples or specific instances, and it is commonly used in comparisons.

Breakdown of the sentence:
- "Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread" - This is the introductory clause that sets the timeframe for the comparison.
- "London isn't" - This is the main clause that states the current condition of London.
- "a polluted city" - This is the first part of the comparison, indicating the previous condition of London.
- "as it was ten years ago" - This is the second part of the comparison, specifying the condition of London ten years ago.

Why option B is correct:
- The phrase "such as" is used to introduce examples or instances. In this context, it is used to indicate that London was previously a polluted city, among other examples or instances.
- By using "such as" in the sentence, it creates a parallel structure and maintains the logical comparison between the current condition and the condition ten years ago.

Example:
- Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isn't such a polluted city as it was ten years ago.
- This sentence effectively conveys that London's level of pollution has decreased compared to ten years ago, without explicitly stating the specific examples or instances of pollution.

Other options explained:
- Option A, "as / as", is incorrect because it is used for indicating equality or similarity, rather than comparing a change in condition.
- Option C, "so / that", is incorrect because it is used to express a cause-effect relationship, which is not applicable in this context.
- Option D, "more / than", is incorrect because it indicates a comparison of degree or quantity, rather than a comparison of condition.
- Option E, "enough / to", is incorrect because it implies sufficiency or adequacy, which is not suitable for the comparison being made in the sentence.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a company‘s aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the company‘s practice organize a highly effective boycott of the company‘s products, their moral views will soon enter into the company‘s deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials. Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability? The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes. In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly. If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following: Q. If a company that produced shampoo products opted to stop the routine testing of its products on animals because it decided that it is wrong to cause the animals pain, what effect would this have on the argument made in the passage?

View answer

As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a companys aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the companys practice organize a highly effective boycott of the companys products, their moral views will soon enter into the companys deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials. Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability? The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes. In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly.If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.A claim that things have ethical value to corporations only insofar as they are instrumental in furthering the ultimate goals of the corporation is

View answer

Practice Quiz or MCQ (Multiple Choice Questions) with solutions are available for Practice, which would help you prepare for"Present Perfect Tense"under English Language Grammar. You can practice these practice quizzes as per your speed and improvise the topic. The same topic is covered under various competitive examinations like - CAT, GMAT, Bank PO, SSC and other competitive examinations.Complete the following exercise withpresent perfectorsimple past tense.He ___________ (liv e) in London for two years and thenwentto Edinburgh. Correct answer is 'lived'. Can you explain this answer?

View answer

A. All over the world, children study math and scienceB. in the hope for becoming Bill Gates. But the hero-entrepreneur myth can be dangerous,C. because what healthful economies really need is not more entrepreneurs,D. but rather enough people who are willing to work for them.

View answer

______ is not far from London. Correct answer is 'It'. Can you explain this answer?

View answer

Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Ever since the use of natural gas became widespread, London isnt ---- a polluted city ---- it was ten years ago.a)as / asb)such / asc)so / thatd)more / thane)enough / toCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.

Explore Courses for Verbal exam