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  >  The storm continued for ---- of the days when... Start Learning for Free
The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasn't ---- damage in the city.
  • a)
    a few / many
  • b)
    several / a lot
  • c)
    all / a little
  • d)
    most / much
  • e)
    some / few
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,&...
The storm continued for most of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasn't much damage in the city.
 
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,&...
The storm continued for several days when we were in New Orleans.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,&...
D
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.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?

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 follownig QuetionsQ.The passage provides support for which of the following assertions?

The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The storm continued for ---- of the days when we were in New Orleans,·but fortunately there wasnt ---- damage in the city.a)a few / manyb)several / a lotc)all / a littled)most / muche)some / fewCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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