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  >  "He (to be) positively rude."a)no i... Start Learning for Free
"He (to be) positively rude."

  • a)
    no improvement

  • b)
    were being

  • c)
    being

  • d)
    was being

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
"He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)b...
The sentence is in the past tense, indicated by the verb "to be." The correct form of "to be" in the past tense for "he" is "was." Additionally, the continuous form of the verb ("being") is needed to describe an ongoing action in the past. Therefore, the correct phrase is "was being." The sentence should read, "He was being positively rude."
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
"He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)b...
"No improvement".

The teacher asked the students [(that) they should] submit their assignments on time.

A. No improvement
B. to submit their assignments on time
C. that they needed to submit their assignments on time
D. if they could submit their assignments on time

B. to submit their assignments on time.

The sentence is in the form of a reported speech where the reporting verb is "asked". In such cases, "that" is not required. Hence, option B is the correct alternative as it removes the redundant "that".
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Analyze the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.The Levels of Being exhibit certain characteristics in a manner which can be termed as progressions. Perhaps the most striking progression is the movement from Passivity to Activity. At the lowest level, that of "minerals" or inanimate matter, there is pure passivity. A stone is wholly passive, a pure object, totally dependent on circumstances and "contingent". It can do nothing, organize nothing, utilize nothing. Even radioactive material is passive.At the level of "animal", through the appearance of consciousness, there is a striking shift from passivity to activity. The processes of life are speeded up; activity becomes more autonomous, as evidenced by free and often purposeful movement such as swift action to obtain food and escape danger. The power of doing, organizing and utilizing is immeasurably extended; there is evidence of an “inner life”, of happiness and unhappiness, confidence, fear, expectation, disappointment and so forth. Any being with an inner life cannot be a mere object: it is a subject itself, capable even of treating other beings as mere objects, as the cat treats the mouse.At the human level, there is a subject that says “I” — a person: another marked change from passivity to activity, from object to subject. To treat a person as if he or she were a mere object is a perversity, not to say a crime. No matter how such a person may be weighed down and enslaved by circumstances, there is always the possibility of self-assertion and rising above circumstances. There is no definable limit to his possibilities, even though there are practical limitations which he has to recognize and respect.This progressive movement from passivity to activity, which we observe in the Levels of Being, is indeed striking, but it is not complete. A large weight of passivity remains even in the most sovereign and autonomous human person; while he is undoubtedly a subject, he remains in many respects an object -dependent, contingent, pushed around by circumstances. Aware of this, mankind has always used its imagination, or its intuitive powers, to complete the process, to extrapolate (as we might say today) the observed curve to its completion. Thus, was conceived a Being, wholly active, wholly sovereign and autonomous; a Person above all merely human persons, in no way an object, above all circumstances and contingencies, entirely in control of everything: a personal God, the "Unmoved Mover". The Levels of Being are thus, seen as pointing to the invisible existence of a level (or Levels) of Being above the human.Consider the statement given below as true:“A plant is mainly, but not totally, passive; it grows toward the light and extends its Marks roots toward moisture and nutrients in the soil.”Q.Replace the italicized phrase with the best alternative. The price of the tickets for the Pink Floyd concert went up to 200$ but most fans could care about it

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.Author of passage I would have the following attitude towards passage II.

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.The author`s final verdict on the issue of human cloning is: (passage I)

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Sub-passage – IThe announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslyn Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous and varied. There are a number of arguments that appear with relative frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship to the process of cloning in a moral sense. The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement that Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguities of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals.Sub-passage – IIPart of being a human being is to be unique. It makes one wonder what kind of people would really like to have a clone. Whoever they are, they will not succeed. We are not facing the crisis in the continuity of human kind. Cloning of a human being is not, and never will be possible because one significant component - the mind - can not be cloned.The only thing that can be cloned is the body. But, human being is not only the body. It is also the mind. The mind-body interaction seems to be unquestionable these days.That interaction is only a part of the whole network of interactions called "The Web of Interactions."This new and constantly developing conceptual framework suggests that each human being is a tripartite entity constituted of three: the material, social and personal being. All these beings are interconnected by interactions. Their constituents such as: mind, perception, beliefs, judgments and actions can all be defined in terms of interactions.On that account the mind is a result of an interaction between the brain and the world.The world is not a stable entity. That means that the state of the world that created the mind of person X can not be repeated. If that is the case then the mind of the person X will not be the clone of person X. If the mind can not be a clone, there is no chance to clone a person.Q.According to passage II, cloning is impossible not because

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

"He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
"He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice "He (to be) positively rude."a)no improvementb)were beingc)beingd)was beingCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
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