Step 1: Differentiate between high-level and low-level languages.
High-level languages (like Java, Python, C++) are designed to be easier for humans to read and write. They provide strong abstraction from the details of the computer's hardware. Low-level languages provide little or no abstraction and are very close to the machine's native instruction set.
Step 2: Define machine dependence.
A language is machine-dependent if its programs can only be executed on the specific type of computer hardware for which they were written. Machine-independent languages can be run on many different types of hardware.
Step 3: Evaluate the options.
(A), (B), (D): Java, C++, and Python are high-level languages. They are designed to be portable (machine-independent). Code written in these languages is compiled or interpreted into machine code for the target platform, but the source code itself is not tied to a specific machine.
(C) Assembly language is a low-level language that is a human-readable representation of a specific computer's machine code. Each processor family (e.g., x86, ARM) has its own unique assembly language. Therefore, it is machine-dependent.
Match the LIST-I (Spectroscopy) with LIST-II (Application)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Visible light spectroscopy | III. Identification on the basis of color |
B. Fluorescence spectroscopy | IV. Identification on the basis of fluorophore present |
C. FTIR spectroscopy | I. Identification on the basis of absorption in infrared region |
D. Mass Spectroscopy | II. Identification on the basis of m/z ion |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Forensic Psychiatry | III. Behavioural pattern of criminal |
B. Forensic Engineering | IV. Origin of metallic fracture |
C. Forensic Odontology | I. Bite marks analysis |
D. Computer Forensics | II. Information derived from digital devices |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Calvin Goddard | II. Forensic Ballistics |
B. Karl Landsteiner | III. Blood Grouping |
C. Albert Osborn | IV. Document examination |
D. Mathieu Orfila | I. Forensic Toxicology |
Match the LIST-I (Evidence, etc.) with LIST-II (Example, Construction etc.)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Biological evidence | IV. Blood |
B. Latent print evidence | III. Fingerprints |
C. Trace evidence | II. Soil |
D. Digital evidence | I. Cell phone records |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Ridges | III. The raised portion of the friction skin of the fingers |
B. Type Lines | I. Two most inner ridges which start parallel, diverge and surround or tend to surround the pattern area |
C. Delta | IV. The ridge characteristics nearest to the point of divergence of type lines |
D. Enclosure | II. A single ridge bifurcates and reunites to enclose some space |