The sun _________ (not / rise)by 4 oclock.Correct answer is 'will not have risen'. 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 > The sun _________ (not / rise)by 4 oclock.Cor...

The sun _________ (not / rise) by 4 o'clock.

Correct answer is 'will not have risen'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

The sun _________ (not / rise)by 4 oclock.Correct answer is 'will not ...

Explanation:

Present Simple Tense:
The given sentence is in the simple future tense. In the simple future tense, we use the base form of the verb with the modal verb "will" or "shall." The subject "sun" is followed by the modal verb "will not" (negative form) and the base form of the verb "rise."

Future Perfect Tense:
The correct answer is "will not have risen." This is because the sentence is talking about a future event that will be completed before a specific time in the future (by 4 o'clock). The future perfect tense is used to express an action that will be completed before a specific point in the future. In this case, the action is the rising of the sun.

Formation of the Future Perfect Tense:
The future perfect tense is formed by using the future auxiliary verb "will" or "shall" with the base form of the main verb and the past participle of the main verb. In this case, the base form of the verb "rise" is used along with the past participle "risen."

Negative Form:
To form the negative form of the future perfect tense, we add the word "not" after the auxiliary verb "will." Therefore, the negative form of "will have risen" becomes "will not have risen."

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the correct answer to the given sentence is "will not have risen." This answer correctly uses the future perfect tense to express the completion of the action of the sun rising before 4 o'clock in the future.

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Future Perfect Tense - Test (Fill In The Blanks)
10 Ques | 10 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CAT tests

Community Answer

The sun _________ (not / rise)by 4 oclock.Correct answer is 'will not ...

The sun will not have risen by 4 o'clock.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

DIRECTIONS for the question: The five sentences (labelled 1,2,3,4, and 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper order for the sentence and key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.1. They simply followed the trail blazed by mainstream mortgage lenders in the 1980s.2. But that did not worry the subprime lenders.3. As a business model subprime lending worked beautifully – as long as interest rates stayed low, as long as people kept their jobs and as long as real estate prices continued to rise.4. Instead of putting their own money at risk, they pocketed fat commissions on signature of the original loan contracts and then resold their loans in bulk to Wall Street banks.5. Of course, such conditions could not be relied upon to last, least of all in a city like Detroit. Correct answer is '35214'. Can you explain this answer?

View answer

The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. implies that:A. Before the 20th century the quality of life was low.B. The mortality rate has decreased.C. Vaccines are a cornerstone of public health

View answer

The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.According to the passage, what is the authors stance on individual gun ownership?

View answer

Group QuestionThe passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.The advent of vaccines has led to a dramatic rise in the quality of life in the 20th century. Vaccines have reduced morbidity of diphtheria, mumps, polio, and several other diseases by over 99%. In the wake of such overwhelming success, many government policies have moved to make vaccines mandatory, but many libertarians and conservatives have argued that this infringes on the individual right to his or her body. However, I believe that mandatory vaccines may in fact protect rights.When evaluating individual rights, the quote The right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins is important to consider. Does the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate harm other individuals? In the sense that you enable yourself to transmit disease to unvaccinated individuals, yes.The problem with this logic falls in the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is when such a large percentage of a population is immune to a disease that, even if one susceptible person becomes ill, the disease is unlikely to spread. For example, if 96% of a population has received ameasles vaccine, when one individual gets measles, it is unlikely that they confer the disease to the other 4% of people, because the individual is surrounded by so many who are immune.These individuals arent all free riders either. Vaccines are not 100% effective, they cannot be used on people of all ages, and some people are allergic to them. These individuals did not make a conscious choice to be vulnerable to a disease, and by one person choosing not to vaccinate, their herd immunity is weakened, significantly increasing their risk of becoming sick.This has happened several times before, particularly after Andrew Wakefields false autism link. In 2014, a measles outbreak occurred in California, only 45% of measles cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals, and among those 12 were in infants too young to be vaccinated.In defending mandatory vaccines, I have been asked if this same argument could be applied to justify gun control. While the data is conflicting depending how its looked at, even if there is a link between gun ownership and gun violence, I dont believe that the increased risk associated with gun ownership is not grounds considering it a right infringement. With guns, the decision that puts others in harms way is not the decision to purchase, but the decision to fire. Furthermore, the decision to fire is already controlled by the illegality of assault, manslaughter, and murder, while the decision not to vaccinate cannot be controlled by anything other than laws mandating it.Vaccines are one of the most important health advancements of the 20th century, but there are many people that they cannot directly protect. For this reason, it is critical that we prevent healthy adults from making a choice not to vaccinate.Q.What is the tone of the passage?

View answer

Anjali, Bipasha, and Chitra visited an entertainment park that has four rides. Each ride lasts one hour and can accommodate one visitor at one point. All rides begin at 9 am and must be completed by 5 pm except for Ride-3, for which the last ride has to be completed by 1 pm. Ride gates open every 30 minutes, e.g. 10 am, 10:30 am, and so on. Whenever a ride gate opens, and there is no visitor inside, the first visitor waiting in the queue buys the ticket just before taking the ride. The ticket prices are Rs. 20, Rs. 50, Rs. 30 and Rs. 40 for Rides 1 to 4, respectively. Each of the three visitors took at least one ride and did not necessarily take all rides. None of them took the same ride more than once. The movement time from one ride to another is negligible, and a visitor leaves the ride immediately after the completion of the ride. No one takes a break inside the park unless mentioned explicitly.The following information is also known. Chitra never waited in the queue and completed her visit by 11 am after spending Rs. 50 to pay for the ticket(s). Anjali took Ride-1 at 11 am after waiting for 30 mins for Chitra to complete it. It was the only ride where Anjali waited. Bipasha began her first of three rides at 11:30 am. All three visitors incurred the same amount of ticket expense by 12:15 pm. The last ride taken by Anjali and Bipasha was the same, where Bipasha waited 30 mins for Anjali to complete her ride.Before standing in the queue for that ride, Bipasha took a 1-hour coffee break after completing her previous ride.Which ride was taken by all three visitors?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CAT

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT