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  >  I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tens... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
I felt somewhat more relaxed ......
  • a)
    but tense as compared to earlier
  • b)
    and tense as compared to earlier
  • c)
    as there was already no tension at all
  • d)
    and tension-free as compared to earlier
  • e)
    because the worry had already captured by mind
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
Verified Answer
I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb...
I felt somewhat more relaxed and tension-free as compared to earlier.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb...
Explanation:

The correct answer is option D, "and tension-free as compared to earlier".

Reasoning:

The sentence states that the person felt "somewhat more relaxed". This means that the level of relaxation increased to some extent. The word "somewhat" indicates a moderate increase in relaxation.

Comparisons:

The sentence also provides a comparison to an earlier state. The word "earlier" suggests that there was a previous state of tension or stress.

Option Analysis:

a) "but tense as compared to earlier" - This option suggests that the person felt relaxed but still had some level of tension compared to the earlier state. However, this contradicts the statement that the person felt "more relaxed". Therefore, option A is incorrect.

b) "and tense as compared to earlier" - This option suggests that the person felt relaxed and also had tension compared to the earlier state. Again, this contradicts the statement that the person felt "more relaxed". Therefore, option B is incorrect.

c) "as there was already no tension at all" - This option suggests that there was no tension at all, which contradicts the earlier statement that there was a previous state of tension. Therefore, option C is incorrect.

d) "and tension-free as compared to earlier" - This option suggests that the person felt more relaxed and free from tension compared to the earlier state. This aligns with the statement that the person felt "more relaxed". Therefore, option D is correct.

e) "because the worry had already captured by mind" - This option suggests that the person felt more relaxed because the worry had already captured their mind. However, this does not explain why the person felt more relaxed. Therefore, option E is incorrect.

Conclusion:

Based on the reasoning and analysis above, option D is the correct answer as it accurately reflects the statement that the person felt "somewhat more relaxed" and "tension-free as compared to earlier".
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb...
And tension free as compared to earlier
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

By regarding the expanding universe as a motion picture, you can easily imagine running the film backward. If you do so, you find the universe getting smaller and smaller, and eventually you come to the moment when its whole mass is crammed into an infinitely dense point. Before that time it didnt exist, or at least it didnt exist in its present form. Though there is some controversy about its exact age, most cosmologists would be inclined to agree that the universe has existed for about ten to twenty billion years. For scale, this can be compared to the four-and-a-half-billion-year age of the solar system, the time since the disappearance of the dinosaurs (sixty-five million years), and the age of the human race (about three million years). The event that marked the beginning of the universe was christened the Big Bang; the term has now entered the vernacular of our culture. Originally the name referred only to the single initiating event; now, however, astronomers have come to use it to mean the entire developmental process of the birth and expansion of the cosmos.The simple statement that the universe had a beginning in time is by now so obvious to astrophysicists that few give it a second thought. Yet it is a statement that has profound implications. Most civilizations embrace one of two opposite concepts of time. Linear time has a beginning, a duration, and an end; cyclical time, as its name suggests, continues around and around forever. In a universe that functions through cyclical time, the question of creation never arises; the universe always was and always will be. The minute you switch to linear time you immediately confront the vexing question not only of creation, but also of the Creator. Although there is no logical reason for the assumption, many people believe that if something comes into existence, it must do so in response to the actions of some rational being. Because of that belief, astronomers, even though they resist becoming involved in theological discussion, find themselves in one when they posit the Big Bang universe. It puts them squarely in the middle of an age-old debate. One common misconception about the Big Bang that should be disposed of immediately is the notion that the universal expansion is analogous to the explosion of an artillery shell. The galaxies are not like bits of shrapnel speeding away from a central explosion. The raisin-indough analogy is a more satisfactory way to think about the whole process. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Why does the author compare the universe to a motion picture?

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: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: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?

Of course, in his attempts at field investigation, the historian is at the disadvantage that the countryside has changed in many respects since the period which he is studying. He is not permitted to use H.G. Wellss time machine, to enable him to see it as it actually was. Inevitably he is concerned in the main, if not exclusively, with literary and other materials, which have survived from that stretch of the past which interests him.Old maps may be plans of cities, charts of sea coasts and estuaries, cartularies of landed estates, or topographic delineations of land areas. These clearly engage the interest of historians and geographers alike, and they call for a combination of the methods and viewpoints of each. Maps can be conceived of and considered in several quite different ways, being properly regarded, and so assessed, as works of artat best as objects of colour, skill, form, and beauty. They may alternatively be regarded purely for their cartographic aesthetic. The main queries which then arise are the following: how is it that the map-maker has carried out his task and with skill of what echelon and with what degree of success has he done so? Such an inquiry falls to the specialist field of historical cartography. An antiquarian map may also be approached in a means akin to that of the student who conceives it as a font contemporaneous with the time of its production. Thus, the historical cartographer may seek to bring grist to his mill and to consider the maps reliability as a satisfactory source of empirical evidence. By such means also the regional historian, in his search for essentials about such past matters as the availability of roads, the extent of enclosed farmland, or the number and location of mines and quarries, is no less an interested party.The value of old maps as documents useful for historicity depends necessarily on to what degree they depict and on how accurately. For virtually all periods of pre-modern history some maps have survived to serve as historiography, depicting, however imperfectly, certain features of past geography. The work of Claudius Ptolemywho lived in the 2nd century A.D.for centuries provided the basis for maps of the known world and its major regions. Although many were drawn on the scientific basis which he provided, they nevertheless embodied many errorsof location, distance, and the shape of areas of land and sea. The medieval portolan charts of the Mediterranean Sea and the later charts which provided sailing directions, produced in Holland, were accurate enough to be useful in practical navigation. Plans of important cities of Europe, so well-drawn as to yield evidence of their earlier form and extent, are notably offered in Braun and Hogenbergs Civitates Orbis Terrarum, published at Cologne and, in England, in John Speeds plans of cities. Similarly, John Ogilbys Britannia, Volume the First, appearing in 1675, gives detailed information of Englands road system as it existed nearly three centuries ago. However, few of the early maps approach modern standards, which require accurate representation of distances and of heights above mean sea-level and the use of carefullydistinguished symbols. This is because it was not until the 18th century that cartography, as an exact science, was born. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.With which of the following statements would the author be most likely to agree?

I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice I felt somewhat more relaxed ......a)but tense as compared to earlierb)and tense as compared to earlierc)as there was already no tension at alld)and tension-free as compared to earliere)because the worry had already captured by mindCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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