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  >  To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitant... Start Learning for Free
To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentence
  • a)
    Seize
  • b)
    Its
  • c)
    Flagrant
  • d)
    Neutrality
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your GMAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard f...
"Neutrality" in this context refers to the quality or state of being neutral, which is a concept or idea, making it the noun in the sentence.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard f...
Identifying the Noun in the Sentence
To identify the noun in the sentence provided, we need to break down the sentence and look for the word that represents a person, place, thing, or idea.

Explanation
- The sentence "To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality" contains several words, but the noun we are looking for is "neutrality."
- The word "neutrality" is a noun as it represents an idea or concept (the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict or disagreement).
- In this sentence, "neutrality" is the noun that represents the diplomatic principle being violated by seizing a foreign embassy.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the noun in the sentence provided is "neutrality" as it represents the concept of diplomatic neutrality that is being disregarded by the act of seizing a foreign embassy and its inhabitants.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is

Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?

Direction: Read the following Passage and Answer the following Question.Currently the Internet is a non-discriminatory space, where each site sends information freely. But this could change if neutrality legislation is not passed. Should Yahoo! pay each time someone downloads a video? Should eBay be charged a connection fee to utilize the Internet which makes its commerce possible? Verizon caused a stir recently when one of its executives said that Google “is enjoying a free lunch.” This free lunch could be ending soon.“Network Neutrality” is a term used to describe the idea that I.S.P’s - like Verizon and Roadrunner - should not be allowed to favor certain websites over others. Network Neutrality is central to keeping the Internet a freely evolving entity. I.S.P.’s are interested in “access tiering,” which assigns to different sites different levels of access. If access tiering is allowed, small business sites could have a harder time getting the connection speeds that companies like Walmart.com would be able to pay for. In this case, larger corporations would have an unfair advantage in online sales.The net neutrality bill, currently being drawn up, would keep I.S.P.’s from charging fees and then favoring those who pay the most. Service providers of phone and cable tend to get their way in federal legislation; however, the public has a strong interest in keeping the Internet a free space. We need to get behind “Network Neutrality” legislation right away. If we come out in strong support of net neutrality, users of the Internet will decide how the Internet evolves, instead of its providers.Q.The passage probably appeared in a

Direction: Read the following Passage and Answer the following Question.Currently the Internet is a non-discriminatory space, where each site sends information freely. But this could change if neutrality legislation is not passed. Should Yahoo! pay each time someone downloads a video? Should eBay be charged a connection fee to utilize the Internet which makes its commerce possible? Verizon caused a stir recently when one of its executives said that Google “is enjoying a free lunch.” This free lunch could be ending soon.“Network Neutrality” is a term used to describe the idea that I.S.P’s - like Verizon and Roadrunner - should not be allowed to favor certain websites over others. Network Neutrality is central to keeping the Internet a freely evolving entity. I.S.P.’s are interested in “access tiering,” which assigns to different sites different levels of access. If access tiering is allowed, small business sites could have a harder time getting the connection speeds that companies like Walmart.com would be able to pay for. In this case, larger corporations would have an unfair advantage in online sales.The net neutrality bill, currently being drawn up, would keep I.S.P.’s from charging fees and then favoring those who pay the most. Service providers of phone and cable tend to get their way in federal legislation; however, the public has a strong interest in keeping the Internet a free space. We need to get behind “Network Neutrality” legislation right away. If we come out in strong support of net neutrality, users of the Internet will decide how the Internet evolves, instead of its providers.Q. The tone of the passage is

Top Courses for GMATView all

Top Courses for GMAT

To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect 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 To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice To seize a foreign embassy and its inhabitants is flagrant disregard for diplomatic neutrality. Find the noun in this sentencea)Seizeb)Itsc)Flagrantd)NeutralityCorrect 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
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!
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup