Question Description
Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question as follow:It is one of the disadvantages of reading books about natural scenic wonders that they fill the mind with pictures, often exaggerated, often distorted, often blurred, and, even when well drawn, injurious to the freshness of first impressions. Such has been the fate of most of us with regard to the Falls of Niagara. There was little accuracy in the estimates of the first observers of the cataract. Startled by an exhibition of power so novel and so grand, emotion leaped beyond the control of the judgment, and gave currency to notions which have often led to disappointment.In the winter of 1678 and 1679 the cataract was visited by Father Hennepin, and described in a book dedicated to the King of Great Britain. He gives a drawing of the waterfall, which shows that serious changes have taken place since his time. He describes it as ‘a great and prodigious cadence of water, to which the universe does not offer a parallel.’ The height of the fall, according to Hennepin, was more than 600 feet. ‘The waters,’ he says, ‘which fall from this great precipice do foam and boil in the most astonishing manner, making a noise more terrible than that of thunder. When the wind blows to the south its frightful roaring may be heard for more than fifteen leagues.’ The Baron la Hontan, who visited Niagara in 1687, makes the height 800 feet. In 1721 Charlevois, in a letter to Madame de Maintenon, after referring to the exaggerations of his predecessors, thus states the result of his own observations: ‘For my part, after examining it on all sides, I am inclined to think that we cannot allow it less than 140 or 150 feet,’—a remarkably close estimate.As regards the noise of the fall, Charlevois declares the accounts of his predecessors, which, I may say, are repeated to the present hour, to be altogether extravagant. He is perfectly right. The thunders of Niagara are formidable enough to those who really seek them at the base of the Horseshoe Fall; but on the banks of the river, and particularly above the fall, its silence, rather than its noise, is surprising. This arises, in part, from the lack of resonance; the surrounding country being flat, and therefore furnishing no echoing surfaces to reinforce the shock of the water.Q.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with doing which of thefollowing?a)Discussing a problem associated with reading books about naturalwonders before visiting themb)Refuting those who claimedthat a natural wonder was of a particular heightc)Describinghow the initial descriptions of a natural wonder were greatlyexaggeratedd)Explaining why an expected aural phenomenondoes not actually occure)Marvelling at the grandeur of anatural wonderCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.