DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes andndash; the proletariat and the bourgeois andndash; are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect 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

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following...

DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.

Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?

a)
Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilable
b)
Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalist
c)
Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europe
d)
Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companies
e)
Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destruction

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and i...

►Option 2 has a metaphor (a figure of speech in which a word for one idea or thing is used in place of another to suggest a likeness).

►Instead of saying that a capitalist is like a parasite the sentence says, ‘Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and i...

►Option 2 has a metaphor (a figure of speech in which a word for one idea or thing is used in place of another to suggest a likeness).

►Instead of saying that a capitalist is like a parasite the sentence says, ‘Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour.

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Practice Test for XAT - 1
100 Ques | 180 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CAT tests

Community Answer

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and i...

Are diametrically opposed.
b)The sun is a golden ball in the sky.
c)The wind whispered through the trees.
d)She is as brave as a lion.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q.Which of the following most accurately describes the difference between bio-power and sovereign power?

View answer

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q."... alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable." From this it can be inferred that the author is LEAST likely to agree with which of the following statements?

View answer

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.Before discussing the relationship, I would like to break down the concepts of bio-power and capitalism used by Foucault first. Foucault defined bio-power to be "the administration of bodies and the calculated management of life". This definition emphasized "administration" and "management". In order to clarify this distinction, Foucault contrasted bio-power against sovereign power. Sovereign power expressed itself as the absolute and final determinant to take away lives. Bio-power, on the contrary, was concerned much less about seizure and deduction.Foucault elaborated the techniques of bio-power through two concepts: anatomo-politics and bio-politics, both of which were forms of bio-power. Anatomo-politics dealt with "the body as a machine" at the level of individuals. It set a normative and desirable standard of the human body and manipulated every single segment of it to conform to its standard; by doing so, it disciplined the body. Bio-politics, on the other hand, dealt with "the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" at the level of population. It aspired to control "propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity" so that it could regulate the population as a whole and thus manage its change in every aspect.It is worth noticing that these two basic forms of bio-power were not antithetical. Anatomo-politics normalized the specific behaviours and set of actions of each individual by implementing normative standards and manipulating body segments. Bio-politics normalized the characteristics of the population by intervening in its political and economic determinants.Foucault did not provide a clear definition of capitalism. His conception of capitalism, however, can be deduced from his explanations. First, Foucault argued that the development of capitalism required adjustment in "the machinery of production and…economic processes" as well as "a stable and competent labour force. It had private ownership and wage labour as its material makeup and economic presupposition. Furthermore, Foucalt mentioned that capitalism was a "development". Third, Foucault pointed out that there were two classes in capitalism: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The political peculiarity of capitalism lay in the antagonism between these two classes, in which the former employed and dominated the latter. Moreover, Foucault claimed that "bio-power was…an indispensable element in the development of capitalism".Capitalism and bio-power together imposed a set of social discourse that appeared as something truthful and justified both of them. Capitalism turned techniques of bio-power and its penetrating control of body into a market principle. Bio-power created a discourse in which the normal way of living, the normal condition of the human body, and the normal character of classes were defined so that the alienated bodies in capitalist production were seen not as miserable, but normal and even desirable. Thus, the social discourses imposed by capitalism and bio-power, which designated a normalized and seemingly truthful notion of body, interactively helped to conceal the wretched conditions and subjugation they brought.Q."Which of the following statements about capitalism and bio-power is the author most likely to agree with?

View answer

The critics who denigrate advertising attack not only advertising but also by logical necessity capitalism, ethical egoism, and reason. As an institution in the division of labor and an instrument of capitalistic production, advertising communicates to many people at one time, the availability and nature of need- and want-satisfying products. In essence, advertising is salesmanship via the mass media; as such, it is the capitalists largest sales force and most effective means of delivering information to the market. In addition, advertising by its essential nature blatantly and unapologetically appeals to the self-interest of consumers for the blatant and selfish gain of capitalists. To criticize advertising is to criticize capitalism and ethical egoism.At the most fundamental level, the attacks on advertising are an assault on reason on mans ability to form concepts and to think in principles because advertising is a conceptual communication to many people at one time about the conceptual achievements of others. It is attacked for precisely this aspect of its nature. The goal of advertising is to sell products to consumers, and the means bywhich this goal is achieved is to communicate what advertisers call the product concept. An advertisement is itself an abstraction, a concept of what the capitalist has produced. Thus, advertising is a conceptual communication in a market economy to self-interested buyers about the self-interested, conceptual achievements of capitalists. To criticize advertising at the most fundamental level- is to assault mans consciousness.From its earliest days, critics attacked capitalism for its dependence on the profit motive and the pursuit of self-interest. As the most visible manifestation, or point man of capitalism, advertising can be called the capitalists tool of selfishness. In a world culture based on altruism and self-sacrifice, it is amazing that advertising has lasted as long as it has. Indeed, its growth was stunted in Great Britain and Ireland for 141 years by a tax on newspapers and newspaper advertising. If selfishness is the original sin of man, according to Judeo-Christian ethics, then surely advertising is the original sin of capitalism. More accurately, advertising is the serpent that encourages man to pursue selfish gain and, in subtler form, to disobey authority. In contemporary economics, pure and perfect competition is the Garden of Eden in which the lion lies down beside the lamb and this dirty, filthy advertising is entirely absent-because consumers allegedly have perfect information. Small wonder that advertising does not have a good press.At the level of fundamental ideas, three attacks on advertising constitute the assault on consciousness. One attack attributes to advertising the coercive power to force consumers to buy products they do not need or want. At the level of metaphysics, this attack denies the volitional nature of reason, that is, free will; consequently, it denies, either explicitly or implicitly, the validity of human consciousness as such. A second attack derides advertising for how offensive it allegedly is; ultimately, critics advocate regulation to control the allegedly offensive advertising. At root -that is, at the level of ethics this attack denies that values are objective, that values are a product of the relation between material objects and a volitional consciousness that evaluates them. Consequently, it denies the existence of rational options.A third attack, which derives from contemporary economics, views advertising as a tool of monopoly power. At the level of epistemology, however, this attack denies the possibility of truth and certainty, because reason allegedly is impotent to know reality; all man can do is emulate the methods of physics, by conducting statistically controlled experiments, and attempt to establish an uncertain, probabilistic knowledge.These three assaults on consciousness form the philosophic foundations of what are commonly known as the social and economic criticisms of advertising, the first two forming the foundation of the social criticisms, the third the foundation of the economic criticisms. The quantity of literature that attacks advertising approaches the infinite. The list of complaints is long, and each one has many variations. Explicitly or implicitly, all attacks attribute to advertising the power to initiate physical force against both consumers and competitors. The social criticisms assert that advertising adds no value to the products it promotes; therefore, it is superfluous, inherently dishonest, immoral, and fraudulent. The economic criticisms assert that advertising increases prices and wastes societys valuable resources; therefore, advertising contributes to the establishment of monopoly power.In essence, there are two social criticisms. The first explicitly charges advertising with the power to force consumers to buy products they do not need or want; the second implicitly charges advertising with this power. According to the first, advertising changes the tastes and preferences of consumers by coercing them to conform to the desires of producers. For example, consumers may want safer auto-mobiles, but what they get, according to the critics, are racing stripes and aluminum hubcaps. Forcing consumers to conform to the desires of producers, the critics point out, is the opposite of what advocates of capitalism claim about a free- market economy-namely, that producers conform to the tastes and preferences of consumers. Within the first criticism there are two forms.The more serious claims that advertising, by its very nature, is inherently deceptive, because it manipulates consumers into buying products they do not need or want. The most specific example of this criticism is the charge of subliminal advertising. Thus, when looking at a place mat in front of you at a Howard Johnsons restaurant, with its picture of the fried clam special, you might be deceived and manipulated into changing your taste. The other form claims that advertising is merely coercive, by creating needs and wants that otherwise would not exist without it. That is, highly emotional, persuasive, combative advertising -as opposed to rational, informative, and constructive advertising - is claimed to be a kind of physical force that destroys consumer sovereignty over the free market. This is Galbraiths dependence effect, so called because our wants, he claims, are dependent on or created by the process by which they are satisfied- the process of production, especially advertising and salesmanship. Our wants for breakfast cereal and laundry detergent, says Galbraith, are contrived and artificial. The psychology of behaviorism has strongly influenced this second form of thefirst social criticism.Both forms of the coercive power charge refer repeatedly to the advertising of cigarettes, liquor, drugs, sports cars, deodorant, Gucci shoes, and color television sets as evidence of advertisings alleged power to force unneeded and unwanted products on the poor, helpless consumer. The charge of manipulation and deception is more serious than mere coercion because manipulation is more devious; a manipulator can make consumers buy products they think are good for them when, in fact, that is not the case. The charge of manipulation, in effect, views advertising as a pack of lies. The charge of mere coercion, on the other hand, claims that advertising is just brute force; advertising in this view, in effect, is excessively pushy.According to the second social criticism, advertising offends the consumers sense of good taste by insulting and degrading his intelligence, by promoting morally offensive products, and by encouraging harmful and immoral behavior. Prime targets of this offensiveness criticism are Mr. Whipple and his Charmin bathroom tissue commercials, as well as the ring around the collar commercials of Wisk liquid detergent and the Noxzema take it all off shaving cream ads. But worse, the critics allege, advertising promotes products that have no redeeming moral value, such as cigarettes, beer, and pornographic literature. Advertising encourages harmful and immoral behavior and therefore is itself immoral. Although this criticism does not begin by attributing coercive power to advertising, it usually ends by supporting one or both forms of the first social criticism, thus calling for the regulation or banishment of a certain type of offensive-meaning coercive-advertising.Q. Find the correct statement.

View answer

The critics who denigrate advertising attack not only advertising but also by logical necessity capitalism, ethical egoism, and reason. As an institution in the division of labor and an instrument of capitalistic production, advertising communicates to many people at one time, the availability and nature of need- and want-satisfying products. In essence, advertising is salesmanship via the mass media; as such, it is the capitalists largest sales force and most effective means of delivering information to the market. In addition, advertising by its essential nature blatantly and unapologetically appeals to the self-interest of consumers for the blatant and selfish gain of capitalists. To criticize advertising is to criticize capitalism and ethical egoism.At the most fundamental level, the attacks on advertising are an assault on reason on mans ability to form concepts and to think in principles because advertising is a conceptual communication to many people at one time about the conceptual achievements of others. It is attacked for precisely this aspect of its nature. The goal of advertising is to sell products to consumers, and the means bywhich this goal is achieved is to communicate what advertisers call the product concept. An advertisement is itself an abstraction, a concept of what the capitalist has produced. Thus, advertising is a conceptual communication in a market economy to self-interested buyers about the self-interested, conceptual achievements of capitalists. To criticize advertising at the most fundamental level- is to assault mans consciousness.From its earliest days, critics attacked capitalism for its dependence on the profit motive and the pursuit of self-interest. As the most visible manifestation, or point man of capitalism, advertising can be called the capitalists tool of selfishness. In a world culture based on altruism and self-sacrifice, it is amazing that advertising has lasted as long as it has. Indeed, its growth was stunted in Great Britain and Ireland for 141 years by a tax on newspapers and newspaper advertising. If selfishness is the original sin of man, according to Judeo-Christian ethics, then surely advertising is the original sin of capitalism. More accurately, advertising is the serpent that encourages man to pursue selfish gain and, in subtler form, to disobey authority. In contemporary economics, pure and perfect competition is the Garden of Eden in which the lion lies down beside the lamb and this dirty, filthy advertising is entirely absent-because consumers allegedly have perfect information. Small wonder that advertising does not have a good press.At the level of fundamental ideas, three attacks on advertising constitute the assault on consciousness. One attack attributes to advertising the coercive power to force consumers to buy products they do not need or want. At the level of metaphysics, this attack denies the volitional nature of reason, that is, free will; consequently, it denies, either explicitly or implicitly, the validity of human consciousness as such. A second attack derides advertising for how offensive it allegedly is; ultimately, critics advocate regulation to control the allegedly offensive advertising. At root -that is, at the level of ethics this attack denies that values are objective, that values are a product of the relation between material objects and a volitional consciousness that evaluates them. Consequently, it denies the existence of rational options.A third attack, which derives from contemporary economics, views advertising as a tool of monopoly power. At the level of epistemology, however, this attack denies the possibility of truth and certainty, because reason allegedly is impotent to know reality; all man can do is emulate the methods of physics, by conducting statistically controlled experiments, and attempt to establish an uncertain, probabilistic knowledge.These three assaults on consciousness form the philosophic foundations of what are commonly known as the social and economic criticisms of advertising, the first two forming the foundation of the social criticisms, the third the foundation of the economic criticisms. The quantity of literature that attacks advertising approaches the infinite. The list of complaints is long, and each one has many variations. Explicitly or implicitly, all attacks attribute to advertising the power to initiate physical force against both consumers and competitors. The social criticisms assert that advertising adds no value to the products it promotes; therefore, it is superfluous, inherently dishonest, immoral, and fraudulent. The economic criticisms assert that advertising increases prices and wastes societys valuable resources; therefore, advertising contributes to the establishment of monopoly power.In essence, there are two social criticisms. The first explicitly charges advertising with the power to force consumers to buy products they do not need or want; the second implicitly charges advertising with this power. According to the first, advertising changes the tastes and preferences of consumers by coercing them to conform to the desires of producers. For example, consumers may want safer auto-mobiles, but what they get, according to the critics, are racing stripes and aluminum hubcaps. Forcing consumers to conform to the desires of producers, the critics point out, is the opposite of what advocates of capitalism claim about a free- market economy-namely, that producers conform to the tastes and preferences of consumers. Within the first criticism there are two forms.The more serious claims that advertising, by its very nature, is inherently deceptive, because it manipulates consumers into buying products they do not need or want. The most specific example of this criticism is the charge of subliminal advertising. Thus, when looking at a place mat in front of you at a Howard Johnsons restaurant, with its picture of the fried clam special, you might be deceived and manipulated into changing your taste. The other form claims that advertising is merely coercive, by creating needs and wants that otherwise would not exist without it. That is, highly emotional, persuasive, combative advertising -as opposed to rational, informative, and constructive advertising - is claimed to be a kind of physical force that destroys consumer sovereignty over the free market. This is Galbraiths dependence effect, so called because our wants, he claims, are dependent on or created by the process by which they are satisfied- the process of production, especially advertising and salesmanship. Our wants for breakfast cereal and laundry detergent, says Galbraith, are contrived and artificial. The psychology of behaviorism has strongly influenced this second form of thefirst social criticism.Both forms of the coercive power charge refer repeatedly to the advertising of cigarettes, liquor, drugs, sports cars, deodorant, Gucci shoes, and color television sets as evidence of advertisings alleged power to force unneeded and unwanted products on the poor, helpless consumer. The charge of manipulation and deception is more serious than mere coercion because manipulation is more devious; a manipulator can make consumers buy products they think are good for them when, in fact, that is not the case. The charge of manipulation, in effect, views advertising as a pack of lies. The charge of mere coercion, on the other hand, claims that advertising is just brute force; advertising in this view, in effect, is excessively pushy.According to the second social criticism, advertising offends the consumers sense of good taste by insulting and degrading his intelligence, by promoting morally offensive products, and by encouraging harmful and immoral behavior. Prime targets of this offensiveness criticism are Mr. Whipple and his Charmin bathroom tissue commercials, as well as the ring around the collar commercials of Wisk liquid detergent and the Noxzema take it all off shaving cream ads. But worse, the critics allege, advertising promotes products that have no redeeming moral value, such as cigarettes, beer, and pornographic literature. Advertising encourages harmful and immoral behavior and therefore is itself immoral. Although this criticism does not begin by attributing coercive power to advertising, it usually ends by supporting one or both forms of the first social criticism, thus calling for the regulation or banishment of a certain type of offensive-meaning coercive-advertising.Q. Which of the following statements does not agree with the idea of social criticism?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

View all

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the following sentence/sentences and identify the figure of speech.Q. Which of the following sentences draws a metaphor?a)Karl Marx argued that the interests of two classes – the proletariat and the bourgeois – are always in conflict and irreconcilableb)Karl Marx labelled the capitalist a parasite on the back of labour because the whole value or produce created by the labouring man was expropriated by the capitalistc)Weber held that the protestant ethic was responsible for the rise of capitalism in medieval Europed)Galbraith argued for a better balance between private affluence and public poverty, including measures to protect the environment against the excesses of private companiese)Schumpeter argued that changes in economy are brought about by creative destructionCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam