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  >  Bill ................... really hard at the m... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.
  • a)
    works
  • b)
    is work
  • c)
    none of the above
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company...
Answer:

Present Continuous Tense

The sentence is in the present continuous tense, which is used to describe actions that are currently happening.

Subject-Verb Agreement

The subject of the sentence is "Bill," which is singular, so the verb should also be singular.

Option Analysis

Option A, "works," is in the simple present tense, which does not convey the continuous aspect of the action.

Option B, "is work," is in the present continuous tense and agrees with the subject "Bill."

Option C, "none of the above," is incorrect because option B is the correct answer.

Conclusion

Therefore, the correct answer is option B, "is work."
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company...
Works is correct answer
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a company‘s aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the company‘s practice organize a highly effective boycott of the company‘s products, their moral views will soon enter into the company‘s deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials. Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability? The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes. In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly. If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following: Q. If a company that produced shampoo products opted to stop the routine testing of its products on animals because it decided that it is wrong to cause the animals pain, what effect would this have on the argument made in the passage?

As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a companys aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the companys practice organize a highly effective boycott of the companys products, their moral views will soon enter into the companys deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials. Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability? The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes. In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly.If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.A claim that things have ethical value to corporations only insofar as they are instrumental in furthering the ultimate goals of the corporation is

As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a companys aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the companys practice organize a highly effective boycott of the companys products, their moral views will soon enter into the companys deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials. Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability? The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes. In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly.If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q. Which of the following assertions would most strengthen the authors claim that deterrence will not work on corporations?

Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2024 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? 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 Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Bill ................... really hard at the moment because his company has just received a big order from China.a)worksb)is workc)none of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam
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
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup