All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the given passage carefully ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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. Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?
  • a)
    The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.
  • b)
    Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his book dedicated to the King of Great Britain.
  • c)
    There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls. 
  • d)
    The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.
  • e)
    The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the period between Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question a...
(D) clearly follows from the last line of the second paragraph and is the correct answer.
(A) There is no comparison of the Niagara Falls with other natural waterfalls in the passage.
(B) ‘Lied’ is not the correct word since Hennepin most likely believed that he was stating the truth. Incorrect estimation is not necessarily the same thing as lying.
(C) This is true but of no relevance to the height of the Niagara Falls.
(E) The passage never suggests that the height of the Falls actually ‘reduced’. The fact is that the height had actually been exaggerated by some people.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question a...
(D) clearly follows from the last line of the second paragraph and is the correct answer.
(A) There is no comparison of the Niagara Falls with other natural waterfalls in the passage.
(B) ‘Lied’ is not the correct word since Hennepin most likely believed that he was stating the truth. Incorrect estimation is not necessarily the same thing as lying.
(C) This is true but of no relevance to the height of the Niagara Falls.
(E) The passage never suggests that the height of the Falls actually ‘reduced’. The fact is that the height had actually been exaggerated by some people.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

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.If, after reading this passage, a person were to visit the Niagara Falls,which of the following would he NOT be surprised at?

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?

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.According to the information in the passage, each of the following is trueEXCEPT

In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred from the passage that García would most probably agree with which one of the following statements about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?

In a recent study, Mario García argues that in the United States between 1930 and 1960 the group of political activists he calls the “Mexican American Generation” was more radical and politically diverse (5) than earlier historians have recognized. Through analysis of the work of some of the era’s most important scholars, García does provide persuasive evidence that in the 1930s and 1940s these activists anticipated many of the reforms proposed by the more (10) militant Chicanos of the 1960s and 1970s. His study, however, suffers from two flaws.First, García’s analysis of the evidence he provides to demonstrate the Mexican American Generation’s political diversity is not entirely (15) consistent. Indeed, he undermines his primary thesis by emphasizing an underlying consensus among various groups that tends to conceal the full significance of their differences. Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, an (20) organization that encouraged Mexican Americans to pursue a civil rights strategy of assimilation into the United States political and cultural mainstream, were often diametrically opposed to organizations such as the Congress of Spanish-Speaking People, a coalition (25) group that advocated bilingual education and equal rights for resident aliens in the United States. García acknowledges these differences but dismisses them as insignificant, given that the goals of groups as disparate as these centered on liberal reform, not (30) revolution. But one need only note the fierce controversies that occurred during the period over United States immigration policies and the question of assimilation versus cultural maintenance to recognize that Mexican American political history since 1930 (35) has been characterized not by consensus but by intense and lively debate.Second, García may be exaggerating the degree to which the views of these activists were representative of the ethnic Mexican population residing in the (40) United States during this period. Noting that by 1930 the proportion of the Mexican American population that had been born in the United States had significantly increased, García argues that between 1930 and 1960 a new generation of Mexican American (45) leaders appeared, one that was more acculturated and hence more politically active than its predecessor. Influenced by their experience of discrimination and by the inclusive rhetoric of World War II slogans, these leaders, according to García, were determined to (50) achieve full civil rights for all United States residents of Mexican descent. However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists. Without a better understanding of the political implications of important variables such as patterns of bilingualism (55) and rates of Mexican immigration and naturalization, and the variations in ethnic consciousness these variables help to create, one cannot assume that an increase in the proportion of Mexican Americans born in the United States necessarily resulted in an increase (60) in the ethnic Mexican population’s political activism.It can be inferred that the author of the passage believes which one of the following about the Mexican American political activists of the 1930s and 1940s?

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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.Which of the following statements can beinferred from the passage about the height of the Niagara Falls?a)The Niagara Falls were higher than any other natural waterfall at the time of writing the passage.b)Hennepin lied about the height of the Niagara Falls in his bookdedicated to the King of Great Britain.c)There are no mountains in the area surrounding the Niagara Falls.d)The actual height of the Niagara Falls is around 150 feet.e)The height of the Niagara Falls reduced considerably in the periodbetween Father Hennepin’s and Charlevois’ visits.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

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