All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Verbal Exam  >  Verbal Questions  >  Can you explain the answer of this question b... Start Learning for Free
Can you explain the answer of this question below:
After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.
  • A:
    CANVASSED
  • B:
    LEAKED
  • C:
    BUGGED
The answer is C.
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections ...
After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been bugged.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections ...
Explanation:

After the elections, it was discovered that the phones had been bugged. This means that someone had placed an electronic device on the phone to listen in on conversations or record them. This is a common tactic used by intelligence agencies or individuals who want to gain access to sensitive information.

What is phone bugging?

Phone bugging involves the installation of a listening device on a telephone line. This can be done by physically attaching a device to the phone line or by remotely accessing the phone line through the internet.

Reasons for phone bugging:

  • Intelligence gathering: Bugging phones is a common tactic used by intelligence agencies to gather information on individuals or organizations.

  • Security: Phone bugging can be used to enhance security by monitoring the conversations of individuals who may pose a threat to national security.

  • Corporate espionage: Companies may bug phones to gain a competitive advantage by listening in on their competitors' conversations.



Signs of phone bugging:

  • Unusual sounds or clicks on the phone line

  • Background noise or echoes during conversations

  • Repeated dropped calls or interference during calls

  • Increased data usage or battery drain on the phone



Legal implications:

Bugging phones without consent is illegal in most countries. It is considered a violation of privacy and can result in criminal charges and penalties. It is important to seek legal advice before using any phone bugging techniques.

Conclusion:

Phone bugging is a serious violation of privacy and can have legal consequences. It is important to be aware of the signs of phone bugging and take appropriate measures to protect personal and sensitive information.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals. The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly.If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the authors claim about single-term political systems?

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals.The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly. If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of a political system with weak political parties?

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s. Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals.The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly. If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Suppose that America adopted a single-term political system. Considering the foreign observers mentioned in the passage. how would they be expected to respond to such a development?

Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C.
Question Description
Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. for Verbal 2025 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C..
Solutions for Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Verbal. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Verbal Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C., a detailed solution for Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. has been provided alongside types of Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Can you explain the answer of this question below:After the elections it was discovered that the phones had been _____________.A:CANVASSEDB:LEAKEDC:BUGGEDThe answer is C. tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup