Interested to Buy Any Domain ? << Click Here >> for more details...
which one is correct and why - 900 Litre or Litres
- 8 Answers
- 11236 Views
- RRB, I also Faced
- E-Mail Answers
Answers were Sorted based on User's Feedback
Answer / manpreet.sodhi08
900 LITRE...
BECAUSE IT IS A UNIT FOR EXAMPLE IF WE MEASURE 100mm length
WE WILL NOT CALL IT 100mmS.WE WILL SIMPLY CALL LENGTH =100mm
| Is This Answer Correct ? | 11 Yes | 4 No |
someimes 900 Litre and sometime 900 literes; both are
correct, depending upon the use in the sentence. So frnds,
please tell me when it will be litres and when litre.
| Is This Answer Correct ? | 6 Yes | 2 No |
Answer / suba
both r wrong ......because liter is the measuring unit....not litre
| Is This Answer Correct ? | 0 Yes | 1 No |
Answer / mehtab alam
This is siply say Singular and plural difference.
So you can use Literes.
There is one more ans. in this page that is The measurement
is dont called plurals.
But the question is not cleared that when it was used. so
you can go directly measurment system and say "Litre" is
correct.
| Is This Answer Correct ? | 2 Yes | 4 No |
Answer / sridhar reddy
"litre" is correct answere because Units must not mension
in plural.
| Is This Answer Correct ? | 0 Yes | 3 No |
what is inflation
what do u know about zen pact
tell mee sume thing about ur self
22 Answers IBM, Satyam, Tech Mahindra, Wipro,
When u loved someone and he is trying to throw a grenade in crowed place. What you will do ? you will kill him/her ?
kick, ____ , walk?? throw, feet, hand, toes
SSC ? Grade ?D? Exam ENGLISH CLOSET TEST TEST ? 35
If one always ought to act so as to produce the best possible circumstances, then morality is extremely demanding. No one could plausibly claim to have met the requirements of this "simple principle." . . . It would seem strange to punish those intending to do good by sentencing them to an impossible task. Also, if the standards of right conduct are as extreme as they seem, then they will preclude the personal projects that humans find most fulfilling. From an analytic perspective, the potential extreme demands of morality are not a "problem." A theory of morality is no less valid simply because it asks great sacrifices. In fact, it is difficult to imagine what kind of constraints could be put on our ethical projects. Shouldn't we reflect on our base prejudices, and not allow them to provide boundaries for our moral reasoning? Thus, it is tempting to simply dismiss the objections to the simple principle. However, in Demands of Morality, Liam Murphy takes these objections seriously for at least two distinct reasons. First, discussion of the simple principle provides an excellent vehicle for a discussion of morality in general. Perhaps, in a way, this is Murphy's attempt at doing philosophy "from the inside out.". . . Second, Murphy's starting point tells us about the nature of his project. Murphy must take seriously the collisions between moral philosophy and our intuitive sense of right and wrong. He [must do so] because his work is best interpreted as intended to forge moral principles from our firm beliefs, and not to proscribe beliefs given a set of moral principles. [Murphy] argues from our considered judgments rather than to them. . . For example, Murphy cites our "simple but firmly held" beliefs as supporting the potency of the over-demandingness objection, and nowhere in the work can one find a source of moral values divorced from human preferences. Murphy does not tell us what set of "firm beliefs" we ought to have. Rather, he speaks to an audience of well-intentioned but unorganized moral realists, and tries to give them principles that represent their considered moral judgments. Murphy starts with this base sense of right and wrong, but recognizes that it needs to be supplemented by reason where our intuitions are confused or conflicting. Perhaps Murphy is looking for the best interpretation of our convictions, the same way certain legal scholars try to find the best interpretation of our Constitution. This approach has disadvantages. Primarily, Murphy's arguments, even if successful, do not provide the kind of motivating force for which moral philosophy has traditionally searched. His work assumes and argues in terms of an inner sense of morality, and his project seeks to deepen that sense. Of course, it is quite possible that the moral viewpoints of humans will not converge, and some humans have no moral sense at all. Thus, it is very easy for the moral skeptic to point out a lack of justification and ignore the entire work. On the other hand, Murphy's choice of a starting point avoids many of the problems of moral philosophy. Justifying the content of moral principles and granting a motivating force to those principles is an extraordinary task. It would be unrealistic to expect all discussions of moral philosophy to derive such justifications. Projects that attempt such a derivation have value, but they are hard pressed to produce logical consequences for everyday life. In the end, Murphy's strategy may have more practical effect than its first-principle counterparts, which do not seem any more likely to convince those that would reject Murphy's premises.
shortcut key for view all formulas in the worksheet?
3 Answers eClerx, Punjab Mandi Board,
What does mean endorse mean in a cheque?
what improvement make in your unit?
what has given you the greatest sense of accomplishment in life
how effective communication can be made ?
English 
