A black sheepa)An unlucky personb)A lucky personc)A partner who takes no share of the profitsd)none of theseCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Verbal Exam > Verbal Questions > A black sheepa)An unlucky personb)A lucky per...

A black sheep

a)
An unlucky person
b)
A lucky person
c)
A partner who takes no share of the profits
d)
none of these

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

A black sheepa)An unlucky personb)A lucky personc)A partner who takes ...

The term "black sheep" is an idiom used to describe a person who is considered a disgrace or an odd one out within a group, especially within a family. It does not refer to luck (unlucky or lucky) or to someone who does not take a share of the profits. Instead, it implies someone who does not fit in with the rest of the group or who brings shame to the group.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

A black sheepa)An unlucky personb)A lucky personc)A partner who takes ...

A black sheep is a phrase used to describe someone who is seen as different or deviant from the rest of their family or group. It is often used to refer to someone who is considered a misfit or an outcast. The term "black sheep" has its origins in the world of sheep farming, where a black sheep was considered undesirable because its black wool was not as valuable as white wool.

Explanation:

Origin of the phrase "black sheep"
The phrase "black sheep" originated from the world of sheep farming. In a flock of white sheep, a black sheep stood out and was considered less valuable because its black wool couldn't be dyed and sold for a high price like white wool. This association of being different or less valuable extended to human behavior and led to the usage of the term "black sheep" to describe someone who stands out in a negative way.

Meaning of a black sheep
A black sheep is someone who is considered different, deviant, or odd from the rest of their family or group. They may have different values, beliefs, or behaviors that set them apart. This phrase is often used to describe someone who doesn't conform to societal norms or expectations.

Characteristics of a black sheep
1. Non-conformity: A black sheep tends to go against the grain and not follow the established norms or rules of their family or group.
2. Deviance: They may engage in behaviors that are considered unacceptable or different from what is expected.
3. Outcast: Being a black sheep can lead to being ostracized or isolated from the rest of the group.
4. Misfit: They may feel like they don't belong or fit in with their family or group due to their different values or behavior.

Usage of the term "black sheep"
The term "black sheep" is often used metaphorically to describe someone who is seen as the odd one out in their family or group. It can be used to express disapproval or disappointment in someone's behavior or choices. However, it is important to note that being a black sheep doesn't necessarily mean that the person is bad or immoral. It simply means that they stand out in a different way.

In conclusion, a black sheep refers to someone who is considered different or deviant from their family or group. They may have different values, beliefs, or behaviors that set them apart. The term originated from sheep farming, where a black sheep was seen as less valuable due to its black wool. While being a black sheep can lead to being ostracized or isolated, it is important to remember that everyone has their own unique qualities and perspectives.

Free Test

FREE

Test: Idioms And Proverbs- 2
25 Ques | 25 Min

Start Free Test

View all free Verbal tests

Community Answer

A black sheepa)An unlucky personb)A lucky personc)A partner who takes ...

Answer:

A black sheep is a term used to describe someone who is different or does not conform to the norms of a group or society. The origin of this phrase comes from the idea that a black sheep stands out among a flock of white sheep, making it easily identifiable and different from the rest. In the context of the given options, none of them accurately describe the meaning of a black sheep.

Explanation:

1. An unlucky person: A black sheep is not necessarily an unlucky person. It refers to someone who is seen as an outlier or deviates from the expected behavior, not someone who is constantly unlucky or unfortunate.

2. A lucky person: Similarly, a black sheep is not a lucky person. The term does not imply any particular luck or fortune associated with the individual being referred to as a black sheep.

3. A partner who takes no share of the profits: This option is not related to the meaning of a black sheep. It describes a partner who does not receive any share of the profits, which is unrelated to the concept of a black sheep.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, a black sheep is someone who is considered different or unconventional within a group or society. It does not imply any specific luck, misfortune, or business partnership arrangement. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'D' - none of these.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action.The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anothers wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obediencethe adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obediencea situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions.Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT false?

View answer

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action. The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another‘s wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obedience—the adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)—follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obedience—a situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following: Q.In the context of the points being made by the author in the passage, the phrase absence of compulsion (line 30) refers to

View answer

The person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault, may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behaviour that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting of his own volition may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders. An act carried out under command is, psychologically, of a profoundly different character than spontaneous action.The important task, from the standpoint of a psychological study of obedience, is to be able to take conceptions of authority and translate them into personal experience. It is one thing to talk in abstract terms about the respective rights of the individual and of authority; it is quite another to examine a moral choice in a real situation. We all know about the philosophic problems of freedom and authority. But in every case where the problem is not merely academic there is a real person who must obey or disobey authority. All musing prior to this moment is mere speculation, and all acts of disobedience are characterized by such a moment of decisive action. When we move to the laboratory, the problem narrows: if an experimenter tells a subject to act with increasing severity against another person, under what conditions will the subject comply, and under what conditions will he disobey? The laboratory problem is vivid, intense, and real. It is not something apart from life, but carries to an extreme and very logical conclusion certain trends inherent in the ordinary functioning of the social world. The question arises as to whether there is any connection between what we have studied in the laboratory and the forms of obedience we have so often deplored throughout history. The differences in the two situations are, of course, enormous, yet the difference in scale, numbers, and political context may be relatively unimportant as long as certain essential features are retained. To the degree that an absence of compulsion is present, obedience is coloured by a cooperative mood; to the degree that the threat of force or punishment against the person is intimated, obedience is compelled by fear. The major problem for the individual is to recapture control of his own regnant processes once he has committed them to the purposes of others. The difficulty this entails represents the poignant and in some degree tragic element in the situation, for nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him. The essence of obedience is the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out anothers wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as culpable for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred, all of the essential features of obediencethe adjustment of thought, the freedom to engage in cruel behaviour, and the types of justification experienced by the person (essentially similar whether they occur in a psychological laboratory or on the battlefiel d)follow. The question of generality, therefore, is not resolved by enumerating all of the manifest differences between the psychological laboratory and other situations, but by carefullyconstructing a situation that captures the essence of obediencea situation in which a person gives himself over to authority and no longer views himself as the cause of his own actions.Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Which of the following findings would serve to most WEAKEN the authors claim in the passage about obedience to authority?

View answer

A man of straw