I can speak in english, but i did speak correct sentance
formation. How can i correct it ? Please give Ans.




Answers were Sorted based on User's Feedback



I can speak in english, but i did speak correct sentance formation. How can i correct it ? Please ..

Answer / abinaya kannan

try to form simple sentences to speak.
and talk without fear

Is This Answer Correct ?    43 Yes 2 No

I can speak in english, but i did speak correct sentance formation. How can i correct it ? Please ..

Answer / poonam

english means what it means that collection of words and
make sentence properly in your mind and speak it smoothly
but without fear.

Is This Answer Correct ?    17 Yes 6 No

I can speak in english, but i did speak correct sentance formation. How can i correct it ? Please ..

Answer / reesdar

hai u can do it.i say one way u can follow this way surely u
can improve urself ntng daily u will read newspaper and then
u will try 2 write ur own words den read loudly without fear
and check it.

Is This Answer Correct ?    9 Yes 1 No




I can speak in english, but i did speak correct sentance formation. How can i correct it ? Please ..

Answer / abdul hameed

No need to correct.
Note the word: did not din't

Is This Answer Correct ?    6 Yes 4 No

Post New Answer



More English Interview Questions

how to use chatting and sending mail from yahoo massenger & gmail ? 2.if u have any more this type of site plz tell me?

1 Answers  


tell mee sume thing about ur self

22 Answers   Wipro, Satyam, IBM, Tech Mahindra,


briefly describe your ideal job

1 Answers   Technip,


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.

0 Answers   Accenture,


When u loved someone and he is trying to throw a grenade in crowed place. What you will do ? you will kill him/her ?

8 Answers   Sutherland,






how disable usb device in group policy editor all configure tell me early

0 Answers   HCL, Bhel, Wipro,


pls send me solved question papers of sbi clerical recruitment my id is niroopa6288@yahoo.com

0 Answers  


i want english language questions for bank exams and send questions to my mail id ssrinivasreddynew@gmail.com

1 Answers  


what should i do i can't remove my weakness?

0 Answers  


2^31*2^40

2 Answers  


founder of chinese republic

1 Answers  


pivot table is use for?

3 Answers   eClerx, Epicenter,






Categories