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  >  Although initial investigations pointed towar... Start Learning for Free
Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......
  • a)
    the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crime
  • b)
    the additional information confirmed his guilt
  • c)
    the subsequent events established that he was guilt
  • d)
    the subsequent events proved that he was innocent
  • e)
    he gave an open confession of his crime
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preced...
  • The sentence begins with ‘although’ implying a contrast and talks of what the initial investigation revealed. The blank must therefore be about what subsequent events showed or proved.
  • Option (d) "the subsequent events proved that he was innocent" is the correct choice.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preced...
Intial investigation pointed, he was gulity. the word although is used.so he was innocent.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preced...
Explanation:



The correct answer is option 'D' - he gave an open confession of his crime.



Initial Investigations:


Initial investigations pointed towards him, implying that there were certain indications or evidence that suggested his involvement in the crime. However, this does not necessarily confirm his guilt. It simply means that the initial investigations raised suspicion.



Preceding Events:


The preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crime. This means that the events or evidence that occurred before the investigation supported the idea that he was guilty. However, corroboration does not prove guilt. It only adds weight to the suspicion.



Additional Information:


The additional information confirmed his guilt. This means that after the initial investigations, further information or evidence was obtained that solidified the belief that he was indeed guilty. However, confirmation does not equate to proof.



Subsequent Events:


The subsequent events established that he was guilty. This means that as the investigation progressed, events or evidence unfolded that clearly indicated his guilt. This could include witnesses, surveillance footage, or any other concrete proof that directly linked him to the crime. Establishing guilt is a stronger form of evidence than mere corroboration or confirmation.



Subsequent Events Proving Innocence:


The subsequent events proved that he was innocent. This statement contradicts the initial investigations, the preceding events, the additional information, and the subsequent events that were mentioned earlier. It suggests that new evidence emerged that completely exonerated him and proved his innocence. However, this contradicts the initial information that pointed towards his involvement.



Open Confession:


The correct option is that he gave an open confession of his crime. An open confession is a clear admission of guilt by the person involved. It removes any doubt or ambiguity about his involvement and serves as strong proof of his guilt. Confessions are often considered one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in criminal cases.

Overall, while initial investigations and preceding events may indicate suspicion or raise doubts about someone's involvement in a crime, it is the subsequent events and, particularly, an open confession that provide stronger evidence of guilt.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources.Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem.Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ.The passage provides support for which of the following assertions?

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

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources. Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystemEven if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation.The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ. What is the main purpose of the author in writing the passage?

Once surrounded and protected by vast wilderness, many of the national parks are adversely affected by activities outside their boundaries. The National Park Organic Act established the national park system and empowered the Secretary of the Interior to manage activities within the parks. Conditions outside park boundaries are not subject to regulation by the Park Service unless they involve the direct use of park resources. Several approaches to protecting the national parks from external degradation have been proposed, such as one focusing on enacting federal legislation granting the National Park Service broader powers over lands adjacent to the national parks. Legislation addressing external threats to the national parks twice passed the House of Representatives but died without action in the Senate. Also brought to the table as a possible remedy is giving the states bordering the parks a significant and meaningful role in developing federal park management policy. Because the livelihood of many citizens is linked to the management of national parks, local politicians often encourage state involvement in federal planning. But, state legislatures have not always addressed the fundamental policy issues of whether states should protect park wildlife. Timber harvesting, ranching and energy exploration compete with wildlife within the local ecosystem. Priorities among different land uses are not generally established by current legislation. Additionally, often no mechanism exists to coordinate planning by the state environmental regulatory agencies. These factors limit the impact of legislation aimed at protecting park wildlife and the larger park ecosystem. Even if these deficiencies can be overcome, state participation must be consistent with existing federal legislation. States lack jurisdiction within national parks themselves, and therefore state solutions cannot reach activities inside the parks, thus limiting state action to the land adjacent to the national parks. Under the supremacy clause, federal laws and regulations supersede state action if state law conflicts with federal legislation, if Congress precludes local regulation, or if federal regulation is so pervasive that no room remains for state control. Assuming that federal regulations leave open the possibility of state control, state participation in policy making must be harmonized with existing federal legislation. The residents of states bordering national parks are affected by park management policies. They in turn affect the success of those policies. This interrelationship must be considered in responding to the external threats problem. Local participation is necessary in deciding how to protect park wildlife. Local interests should not, however, dictate national policy, nor should they be used as a pretext to ignore the threats to park regions. Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the following Questions: In the context of the passage, the phrase external degradation (lines 8-9) refers to which of the following

Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2025 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect 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 Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Although initial investigations pointed towards him ......a)the preceding events corroborated his involvement in the crimeb)the additional information confirmed his guiltc)the subsequent events established that he was guiltd)the subsequent events proved that he was innocente)he gave an open confession of his crimeCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? 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