Question 1

Complete the sentence by choosing the most appropriate noun that fits the context. The sentence is: Cultural _____ is very important in international business.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence completion question tests understanding of vocabulary and collocations in a business and social context. The sentence discusses an important quality needed in international business, where people from different cultures interact regularly. The learner must identify which noun correctly combines with cultural and expresses the idea of awareness and respect toward other cultures. This type of question strengthens word choice skills and improves professional communication. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Cultural _____ is very important in international business. Options: sensibility, sensitivity, smartness, susceptibility. We assume that the sentence describes a desirable quality for successfully working across cultures. The task is to select the noun that forms a meaningful and standard phrase with cultural. Concept / Approach: The key concept here is the common phrase cultural sensitivity, which refers to the ability to recognise, respect, and appropriately respond to cultural differences. In international business, this quality is crucial for building trust, avoiding misunderstandings, and working effectively with colleagues and clients from diverse backgrounds. While the other options are real words, they either do not collocate naturally with cultural in this context or do not express the intended positive quality. The approach is to evaluate the meaning of each option with cultural and eliminate those that do not fit. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Insert each option into the blank and read the full sentence. Step 2: Cultural sensibility suggests a sense of culture but is not the most common or precise expression in a business context. Step 3: Cultural sensitivity is a widely used phrase that means being aware of and respectful toward cultural differences. Step 4: Cultural smartness sounds informal and does not carry a clear, established meaning in professional language. Step 5: Cultural susceptibility would imply being easily influenced or harmed by cultural factors, which is not a desirable skill. Step 6: Conclude that sensitivity is the best and most accurate choice for the blank. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify by considering examples from business articles and training materials. Expressions such as cultural sensitivity training and cultural sensitivity in negotiations are very common. These refer to programmes and practices designed to help employees understand and respect cultural differences. On the other hand, phrases like cultural smartness or cultural susceptibility rarely appear in serious business writing. Sensibility does exist in combinations like artistic sensibility, but cultural sensitivity is the recognised and precise collocation for this context of international business relations, which confirms the choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: sensibility: Although it means awareness or refined feeling, the more standard and specific phrase in this context is cultural sensitivity, not cultural sensibility. smartness: This word usually refers to intelligence or stylish appearance and is not a formal or established combination with cultural in business discussions. susceptibility: This means vulnerability to being affected or harmed, which describes a weakness rather than an important positive quality in international business. Common Pitfalls: Learners may be tempted by words that look sophisticated or are vaguely familiar, even if they do not form standard collocations. Another pitfall is treating words like sensibility and sensitivity as interchangeable, even though they have different typical uses. To avoid these errors, it helps to notice how words are actually used together in authentic reading materials, especially in the areas of business, management, and communication, and to remember common phrases like cultural sensitivity, cross cultural communication, and global awareness. Final Answer: The correct word to complete the sentence is sensitivity, giving the phrase cultural sensitivity.

Question 2

Complete the sentence by choosing the phrasal verb that best fits the context. The sentence is: We should first collect the funds and then _____ action.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of phrasal verbs and natural English expressions. The sentence describes a sequence of activities: first raising funds and then energetically starting some work or project. A common idiomatic expression for starting energetic activity is to plunge into action. Learners must recognise which preposition correctly completes the phrasal verb plunge into in this context, since prepositions often determine whether a phrase sounds natural and grammatically correct. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: We should first collect the funds and then _____ action. Options: plunge into, plunge onto, plunge at, plunge in. We assume that the sentence describes beginning an activity with energy after preparation. The task is to find the phrasal verb that fits both grammatically and idiomatically with action. Concept / Approach: The verb plunge literally means to dive or fall suddenly, often into water. In a figurative or idiomatic sense, it means to begin an activity suddenly and with enthusiasm or energy. The usual collocation in English is plunge into an activity, such as plunge into work, plunge into study, or plunge into action. Other prepositions like onto, at, or in do not create the standard idiomatic expression here. The approach is to recall this established pattern or to eliminate options that do not form familiar or correct combinations with action. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the full sentence with each option to sense which one sounds natural. Step 2: Try plunge into: We should first collect the funds and then plunge into action. This expresses starting activity energetically. Step 3: Try plunge onto: We should first collect the funds and then plunge onto action. This sounds incorrect in standard English. Step 4: Try plunge at: We should first collect the funds and then plunge at action. This also does not form a meaningful phrase. Step 5: Try plunge in: while plunge in can be used in some contexts, plunge in action is not a standard collocation. The usual structure is plunge into action. Step 6: Conclude that plunge into is the only option that correctly completes the phrase. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider other common uses of this phrasal verb. Phrases such as the team plunged into preparations for the event, after the delay we must plunge into work, and once the funds arrive they will plunge into the project are widely used and accepted. In each of these, into appears immediately after plunge. The expression plunge into action is also frequently used in news and literature to describe people who start doing something energetic at once. This consistent pattern confirms that plunge into is the correct choice for the sentence in the question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: plunge onto: This preposition suggests movement onto a surface and is not used with abstract nouns like action in this meaning. plunge at: This could suggest attacking or rushing at something physically, but it does not combine naturally with action in this context of starting work. plunge in: Although plunge in can be used informally meaning join suddenly, it normally requires an object or context, and the standard idiom with action specifically is plunge into action, not plunge in action. Common Pitfalls: Phrasal verbs are challenging because small changes in preposition can completely alter the meaning or make the phrase incorrect. Learners sometimes rely on guesswork based on literal meanings of prepositions, which does not always work in idiomatic expressions. To avoid this, it is helpful to learn phrasal verbs as fixed combinations, such as plunge into action, jump at an opportunity, and throw oneself into work. Regular reading and exposure to authentic English helps internalise these expressions. Final Answer: The correct phrase is plunge into, so the sentence should read: We should first collect the funds and then plunge into action.

Question 3

In each of the following questions, an idiom or phrase is given. Choose the alternative that best expresses its meaning in simple English. The expression here is: Held up.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests understanding of English idioms and phrasal verbs. The expression held up can have more than one meaning depending on the context, so learners must choose the sense that is most commonly tested in examinations and that fits the general usage of the phrase. Idioms are fixed expressions whose meanings cannot always be directly guessed from the individual words, so recognising them is essential for good comprehension and fluent communication. Given Data / Assumptions: Idiom given: Held up. Options: Kidnapped, Delayed, Caught, Nabbed. No specific sentence context is provided, so we assume a general situation such as travel or an activity being postponed. The task is to choose the meaning that is most widely associated with held up in everyday English and exam usage. Concept / Approach: The phrasal verb hold up has several meanings, including delay, rob at gunpoint, and support. In competitive exams, the most frequently tested meaning in general contexts is delayed. For example, we say I was held up in traffic to mean that traffic slowed or stopped progress and caused a delay. The approach is to recall which meaning makes the expression most useful in everyday sentences and which matches standard exam patterns. Since the question does not mention crime or violence, the neutral sense related to delay is the most appropriate. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the common phrase I was held up in traffic, which clearly means I was delayed by traffic. Step 2: Compare this meaning with each option. Delayed matches this sense exactly. Step 3: Consider Kidnapped, which involves illegal capture of a person, a meaning usually expressed by abducted or kidnapped rather than held up on its own. Step 4: Consider Caught and Nabbed, both of which suggest being seized or arrested, not simply delayed. Step 5: Since the most common and general exam meaning of held up is delayed, select Delayed as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, place the expression in standard sentences. For instance, the meeting was held up due to rain clearly means the meeting was delayed. Similarly, our train was held up at the station does not refer to kidnapping or arrest but to being forced to stop and wait. In news reports or stories, if the phrase is used to mean robbery, it is usually expanded as held up at gunpoint or held up by robbers. Since the question provides no such context or extra words, the neutral and common meaning delayed is confirmed as the intended one. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kidnapped: This is a strong word for unlawful capture and removal of a person and is not the usual standalone meaning of held up in neutral situations. Caught: This can mean captured or discovered, but it does not convey the idea of being delayed by circumstances. Nabbed: This is informal for caught or arrested and similarly does not carry the meaning of delay, which makes it inappropriate here. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to pick a dramatic or extreme meaning because it seems more interesting, even when the question provides no context to support it. Learners may also confuse held up with hold up used in the specific crime sense. It is important to remember that many phrasal verbs have multiple meanings, and the safest choice in exams is usually the meaning that fits most general, neutral contexts unless the question explicitly suggests otherwise. Final Answer: The idiom Held up most commonly means Delayed.

Question 4

In each of the following questions, an idiom or phrase is given. Choose the alternative that best expresses its meaning in simple English. The expression here is: To play fast and loose.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines the meaning of the idiom to play fast and loose, which is a fixed expression in English. Idioms often have meanings that cannot be directly understood from the individual words, so learners must rely on prior exposure and memory. This particular idiom is used to criticise behaviour that is careless, irresponsible, or untrustworthy, especially in dealing with people or important matters. Understanding such idioms improves comprehension of newspapers, literature, and advanced spoken English. Given Data / Assumptions: Idiom given: To play fast and loose. Options: To be narrow minded, To play a good game, To act in an unreliable way, To defeat a person. No supporting sentence is provided, so we rely on the standard definition of the idiom. The task is to select the option that captures the recognised meaning in everyday and literary usage. Concept / Approach: The idiom to play fast and loose historically referred to dishonest or inconsistent behaviour, often in games of chance or in keeping promises. In modern usage, it means to behave in a way that is not reliable, to treat rules, promises, or people in a careless or deceptive manner, and to shift one's position for convenience. The approach is to match this concept with the options and to eliminate choices that describe unrelated qualities, such as being narrow minded or physically defeating someone. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the general meaning of the idiom: behaving irresponsibly or without regard for commitments. Step 2: Compare this with the option To act in an unreliable way. This directly reflects careless and untrustworthy behaviour. Step 3: Examine To be narrow minded, which refers to being intolerant or unwilling to consider new ideas, and does not match the idiom. Step 4: Consider To play a good game, which is literal and has no relation to dishonesty or inconsistency. Step 5: Consider To defeat a person, which suggests victory but not the specific idea of unreliable or deceitful behaviour. Step 6: Conclude that To act in an unreliable way is the correct interpretation of the idiom. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, place the idiom in sample sentences. For example, the manager was accused of playing fast and loose with company funds, which clearly does not mean that he was narrow minded or that he defeated anyone in a game. Rather, it implies that he dealt with money in a careless or dishonest way. Another example is you should not play fast and loose with people's feelings, meaning you should not treat emotions lightly or insincerely. In both examples, the central idea is unreliability and lack of seriousness, which matches the chosen option. Why Other Options Are Wrong: To be narrow minded: This describes a lack of openness or tolerance but does not express the idea of inconsistent or deceptive behaviour. To play a good game: This could be a literal description of sports or competition and is unrelated to the idiom's critical sense. To defeat a person: This refers to winning or overcoming someone, which is not the meaning of playing fast and loose in moral or behavioural contexts. Common Pitfalls: Learners may incorrectly assume that idioms with the word play relate to games or sports, or they might select an option that sounds serious without checking the actual meaning. Another pitfall is ignoring the historical and figurative nature of such expressions. To avoid mistakes, it is important to learn idioms in context, note their typical usage in sentences, and connect them with real life situations where the behaviour described would be criticised or praised. Final Answer: The idiom To play fast and loose means To act in an unreliable way.

Question 5

Choose the option that best expresses the meaning of the idiom Feather one's own nest, which describes a particular kind of behaviour.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests comprehension of the idiom feather one's own nest, which appears in discussions about self interest, corruption, and misuse of position. Idioms often have figurative meanings that go beyond the literal image created by the words. Here, the idiom suggests that a person is using their position or opportunities mainly to enrich themselves, especially in a way that may be dishonest or morally doubtful. Understanding such idioms is important for interpreting newspaper reports and critical commentary. Given Data / Assumptions: Idiom given: Feather one's own nest. Options: Decorate, Work hard at home, build a home, make money in an improper way. No sentence is provided, so we rely on the standard figurative meaning. The task is to select the explanation that captures the negative moral judgment implied by the idiom. Concept / Approach: Literally, birds feather their nests by bringing soft materials to make them comfortable. In the idiom, a person is said to feather their own nest when they use their position, power, or opportunities primarily to increase their personal wealth or comfort, often through unfair, corrupt, or selfish means. The expression is usually used critically. The correct option therefore needs to reflect the idea of gaining money or benefits for oneself in a questionable way, rather than simply decorating or building a home. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the figurative meaning of the idiom: to profit oneself at the expense of others, often dishonestly. Step 2: Read the options and identify any that mention making money, which is central to the idiom. Step 3: Option D states make money in an improper way, which fits both the money aspect and the negative moral judgment. Step 4: Option A, Decorate, focuses only on appearance and does not involve money or selfish gain. Step 5: Option B, Work hard at home, suggests effort but not self enrichment through misuse of position. Step 6: Option C, build a home, is a literal interpretation and ignores the figurative meaning of the idiom. Step 7: Conclude that Option D correctly represents the figurative meaning of the expression. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider example sentences such as critics accused the minister of feathering his own nest while in office. This clearly does not mean he decorated his house or worked hard at home; it implies he used his official role to gain personal wealth. Another example is instead of working for the welfare of the company, he has been feathering his own nest. Again, the focus is on selfish financial advantage, often with an unethical aspect. These examples confirm that the idiom refers to making money or securing advantages for oneself in a way that others may view as improper or corrupt. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Decorate: While nests and homes can be decorated, the idiom is not about interior design but about selfish financial gain. Work hard at home: This phrase suggests diligence but does not involve the idea of misusing power to enrich oneself. build a home: This is a literal construction activity and does not capture the figurative, critical meaning of the idiom. Common Pitfalls: Learners may be misled by the literal image of a nest and assume that the idiom relates to making a home comfortable. Another pitfall is not recognising the negative moral tone present in many idioms that describe selfishness or corruption. To avoid such errors, it is important to learn idioms in context, notice the tone in example sentences, and remember that many idioms describe character or behaviour rather than physical actions. Final Answer: The idiom Feather one's own nest means make money in an improper way.

Question 6

Out of the following alternatives, choose the single word that can be used for the given phrase. The phrase is: The act of killing a king.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with one word substitutions, which are single words that express ideas or phrases that would otherwise require several words. The phrase given here, the act of killing a king, is common in history, politics, and literature. English has a precise term for this specific kind of killing. Recognising such words strengthens vocabulary and allows for more concise and accurate expression, especially in academic and competitive exam settings. Given Data / Assumptions: Phrase: The act of killing a king. Options: Regicide, Regalcide, Genocide, Homicide. We assume the question refers to the intentional killing of a reigning king or monarch. The task is to select the one accurate word that exactly matches this meaning. Concept / Approach: Many English words related to types of killing contain the suffix cide, which comes from Latin and means killing or killer. The prefix usually indicates the target. For example, homicide refers to the killing of a human being, suicide to killing oneself, genocide to killing a large group or race, and regicide to killing a king or monarch. The approach is to recall or deduce the meaning of each option by understanding the prefix and matching it with the phrase in the question. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key idea in the phrase: a king is killed. Step 2: Examine Regicide. The prefix regi derives from rex or regis, meaning king, and cide means killing, so regicide literally means killing a king. Step 3: Examine Regalcide. Regal relates to something royal, but this form is not the standard accepted English word for killing a king. Step 4: Examine Genocide. The prefix geno refers to race, tribe, or people, so genocide means killing a race or large group, not specifically a king. Step 5: Examine Homicide. The prefix homo refers to human, so homicide is the killing of a human being in general, not limited to a king. Step 6: Conclude that Regicide is the only option that exactly matches the given phrase. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, we can refer to usage in history and political science. Texts discussing the execution or assassination of monarchs, such as accounts of the death of King Charles the First of England, often describe the act as regicide. Dictionaries also define regicide as the killing of a king or the person who kills a king. Other words like genocide and homicide are used in news reports and legal documents with broader targets and do not carry the specific association with a monarch. This confirms that regicide is the correct and precise term. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Regalcide: Although built from the root regal, this is not the standard or widely accepted English term for killing a king. Genocide: This word refers to the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group, not specifically a king. Homicide: This is a general term for killing a human being and is often used in legal contexts, but it is not restricted to kings or monarchs. Common Pitfalls: Learners may be tempted by words that sound similar to regal or royal and assume they must be correct. Another pitfall is not understanding the meaning of common prefixes and suffixes like geno, homo, and cide. Building familiarity with these elements helps decode many English words. It is also important to rely on standard usage as found in textbooks and dictionaries rather than inventing or accepting forms that simply sound logical. Final Answer: The correct one word substitution for the act of killing a king is Regicide.

Question 7

Out of the following alternatives, choose the single word that can be used for the given phrase. The phrase is: Emission of light or heat from a central point.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question involves a one word substitution for a scientific phrase describing how energy spreads from a source. The phrase refers to the emission of light or heat from a central point, a basic concept in physics and everyday understanding of energy. English has a specific term for this process which is commonly used in science textbooks, environmental discussions, and technology related topics. Understanding such terms helps in both science learning and general vocabulary development. Given Data / Assumptions: Phrase: Emission of light or heat from a central point. Options: Rays, Refraction, Reflection, Radiation. We assume the phrase describes the process or phenomenon, not just the physical lines or beams. The task is to select the word that correctly names the process of energy being emitted. Concept / Approach: The key concept is that radiation is the process by which energy in the form of waves or particles moves outward from a source. Light, heat, and other forms of energy can radiate from a central point, such as the sun radiating heat and light into space. Rays refers to the beams themselves rather than the process, while refraction and reflection are different phenomena involving bending and bouncing back of light. The approach is to match each option with the idea of emission and eliminate those that describe other behaviours of light. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify that the phrase focuses on emission of light or heat, meaning energy moving outward from a central source. Step 2: Consider Radiation. This term is used for the process of energy radiating outwards, such as solar radiation or thermal radiation. Step 3: Consider Rays. Rays are the lines or paths along which light travels, not the process of emission itself. Step 4: Consider Refraction. Refraction is the bending of light when it passes from one medium to another, such as from air to water. Step 5: Consider Reflection. Reflection is the bouncing back of light from a surface, such as a mirror or water. Step 6: Since only Radiation directly refers to the outward emission of energy from a source, choose Radiation as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify by recalling standard scientific phrases. School textbooks speak of heat radiation, electromagnetic radiation, and radiation from the sun, all of which describe energy emitted from a central point. When diagrams show light coming out from a bulb or the sun in all directions, they often describe the process as radiation. Rays are drawn to represent these paths, but the phenomenon is still called radiation. Refraction and reflection are usually explained in separate chapters with diagrams showing bending or bouncing of light, not emission. This confirms that radiation is the right choice for the phrase given. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rays: These are the lines or beams of light, not the general process of emitting energy from a source. Refraction: This refers to the bending of light when it passes between different transparent media, not to its emission. Reflection: This describes light bouncing off a surface and returning, not spreading out from the original source. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes choose rays because they associate visual images of lines radiating out from the sun with the word rays. Another pitfall is confusing various optical phenomena because they are often studied together. To avoid such errors, it is helpful to remember that radiation is about energy emission, reflection is about bouncing back, and refraction is about bending upon entering a new medium. Clear mental separation of these concepts leads to more confident answers. Final Answer: The correct one word substitution is Radiation.

Question 8

Out of the following alternatives, choose the single word that can be used for the given description. The description is: That which cannot be believed.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This one word substitution question tests understanding of adjectives related to belief and credibility. The description given is that which cannot be believed. English has an adjective that directly expresses this idea and is often used for things that seem too unusual, shocking, or extraordinary to be accepted easily as true. Recognising this word strengthens vocabulary for describing extreme situations, surprising events, or doubtful claims. Given Data / Assumptions: Description: That which cannot be believed. Options: Awesome, Incredible, Credible, Ineffective. We assume the focus is on belief and trustworthiness, not on usefulness or emotional impact. The task is to select the adjective whose core meaning matches cannot be believed. Concept / Approach: The key concept is the difference between credible and incredible. Credible means believable or reliable, while incredible literally means not believable. Over time, incredible is also used informally to mean amazing or extraordinary, but the root meaning still connects to disbelief. Awesome describes something that inspires awe, and ineffective describes something that does not work well. The approach is to focus on the exact wording of the description cannot be believed and match it to the literal or original meaning of the options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the central idea of the description: something is impossible or very hard to believe. Step 2: Consider Incredible. Formed from in plus credible, it literally means not believable and is used for things that are astonishing or beyond belief. Step 3: Consider Credible. This means believable or trustworthy, which is the opposite of what the description states. Step 4: Consider Awesome. While it may describe something very impressive, it does not directly mean cannot be believed. Step 5: Consider Ineffective. This refers to something that does not produce the desired result and has no connection to belief or disbelief. Step 6: Conclude that Incredible is the only option that correctly matches the phrase that which cannot be believed. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider example sentences. We might say the story he told was incredible, meaning it was so strange or unlikely that it was hard to believe. Dictionaries define incredible as so extraordinary as to seem impossible or not to be believed. In contrast, credible evidence means evidence that can be trusted and believed. Awesome is often used to praise things as wonderful or impressive, for example, an awesome performance, but this is different from the idea of not believable. Ineffective is used in contexts like an ineffective treatment and does not refer to belief at all. These comparisons confirm that incredible is the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Awesome: Focuses on emotional impact and sense of awe rather than belief or disbelief. Credible: Means believable or reliable, which is the direct opposite of cannot be believed. Ineffective: Describes something that fails to produce results and is unrelated to the concept of believability. Common Pitfalls: Learners may confuse incredible with awesome because both are sometimes used informally to praise something. However, exam questions often expect the literal or core meaning of words. Another pitfall is ignoring the negative prefix in and assuming the word still carries a positive sense of belief. Paying attention to prefixes like in, un, and dis and understanding their effect on word meanings helps avoid such mistakes. Final Answer: The correct one word substitution for that which cannot be believed is Incredible.

Question 9

A part of the sentence is incorrect and needs improvement. The sentence is: I tried to cane her, but of no purpose. Choose the option that best improves the underlined expression so that the sentence becomes grammatically correct and natural.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on choosing the correct preposition to complete a fixed English expression. The sentence describes an action that did not achieve any result. In such situations, English uses idiomatic phrases like to no purpose or for no purpose. Here, the examiner expects the specific and widely used expression to no purpose. The learner must recognise which preposition fits naturally after but and before no purpose to make the sentence correct. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: I tried to cane her, but of no purpose. Options: for, with, to, No improvement. The underlined segment in the original question is the phrase of no purpose. The task is to replace the preposition, if needed, to form an accepted English expression. Concept / Approach: The key concept is recognition of the idiomatic phrase to no purpose, which means without any useful result or in vain. When the speaker says that an effort was made but had no effect, they may say it was to no purpose. The phrase of no purpose is much less common and sounds unnatural in this structure after but. The approach is to recall the correct idiom and test each option by inserting it into the sentence to see which one yields a standard, fluent expression. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the original sentence: I tried to cane her, but of no purpose. Step 2: Replace of with for: I tried to cane her, but for no purpose. This is understandable but still not the most natural idiom after but. Step 3: Replace of with with: I tried to cane her, but with no purpose. This suggests a different structure and is not the usual phrasing in this pattern. Step 4: Replace of with to: I tried to cane her, but to no purpose. This is a recognised and idiomatic way of stating that the attempt failed to produce results. Step 5: Consider No improvement, which would leave the sentence as but of no purpose, a form that sounds awkward and non standard. Step 6: Conclude that to is the correct choice and that the improved phrase is to no purpose. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, recall similar expressions: all his efforts were to no purpose, their complaints were to no purpose, and she cried all night to no purpose. Grammar and usage references show that to no purpose is an established idiom equivalent to in vain or without result. Although one can say for no purpose in some contexts, the structure with but and the rhythm of the sentence here strongly favour the idiomatic form to no purpose. The phrase of no purpose is not commonly used in this sense and sounds unnatural, confirming that it needs to be changed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: for: The phrase for no purpose is understandable but less idiomatic in this exact structure, and the exam usually expects the standard expression to no purpose. with: With no purpose would change the meaning to acting without having a purpose, which is not the idea here; the sentence emphasises lack of result, not lack of intention. No improvement: Keeping of no purpose would leave the sentence sounding awkward and not in line with common idiomatic English usage. Common Pitfalls: Learners often focus only on literal meaning and ignore the fixed nature of idiomatic expressions. Because several prepositions can suggest a similar idea, it may be tempting to choose any that seem roughly acceptable. However, sentence improvement questions usually test the most natural collocation. Regular reading of well written English helps build a sense of which preposition appears in specific fixed phrases, such as to no purpose, in vain, and to no avail. Final Answer: The correct improvement is to replace of with to, giving the idiomatic phrase to no purpose.

Question 10

A part of the sentence is incorrect and needs improvement. The sentence is: The soldier mentioned that they had to pay a consideration of fifty pounds with accordance in the contract we signed. Choose the option that best improves the underlined par…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests knowledge of a standard formal expression used in legal and official contexts. The sentence refers to paying a specific consideration according to the terms of a contract. In English, there is a fixed phrase in accordance with, which is used to show that an action follows rules, laws, agreements, or instructions. The underlined part of the original sentence does not use this expression correctly, so the learner must choose the option that restores the proper form. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The soldier mentioned that they had to pay a consideration of fifty pounds with accordance in the contract we signed. Options: by accordance with, in accordance with, with accordance to, No improvement. The underlined segment in the original question is with accordance in. The task is to replace it with the correct prepositional phrase, if necessary. Concept / Approach: The key concept is the fixed expression in accordance with, which means in agreement with, in line with, or according to. It is commonly used with documents such as contracts, laws, regulations, and instructions. The original phrase with accordance in is incorrect because accordance normally pairs with in and with together as a unit, not with a different preposition order. The approach is to recognise the standard phrase and select the option that exactly matches it, checking that the entire sentence then reads smoothly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the problematic phrase: with accordance in the contract we signed. Step 2: Recall the correct fixed expression in accordance with, which is regularly used in formal English. Step 3: Test Option A, by accordance with. This is not a recognised phrase and sounds incorrect. Step 4: Test Option B, in accordance with. The sentence becomes: had to pay a consideration of fifty pounds in accordance with the contract we signed, which is natural and correct. Step 5: Test Option C, with accordance to. This again is not a standard combination; accordance is not followed by to in this way. Step 6: Test No improvement. This would preserve the incorrect form with accordance in, so it cannot be correct. Step 7: Conclude that in accordance with is the correct replacement. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider other common uses of this phrase: in accordance with the law, in accordance with company policy, in accordance with the manual, and in accordance with the agreement. These expressions are widely used in formal writing and clearly show that the pattern is in accordance with plus the noun. Replacing the underlined part with in accordance with aligns the sentence with standard legal and administrative language. No other option matches this well established pattern, confirming that Option B is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: by accordance with: This is not a recognised phrase in English; accordance does not combine with by in this way. with accordance to: This incorrectly pairs accordance with to the contract, which is not a standard structure; readers would find it awkward and ungrammatical. No improvement: Keeping with accordance in would leave the sentence clearly incorrect and unidiomatic, which is not acceptable in formal usage. Common Pitfalls: Learners often try to form their own combinations based on literal meanings of words, forgetting that many expressions in English are fixed. Another pitfall is mixing parts of different expressions, such as combining in agreement with and in accordance with, creating forms like with accordance to. To avoid such errors, it is important to memorise common legal and formal phrases, including in accordance with, in compliance with, and in line with, and to use them exactly as they appear in reliable sources. Final Answer: The underlined phrase should be improved to in accordance with the contract we signed.

Question 11

A part of the sentence is incorrect and needs improvement. The sentence is: Pankaj could not have seen us or he will have waved. Choose the option that best improves the underlined verb phrase so that the sentence becomes grammatically correct and m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests the correct use of conditional and modal verb forms in English. The sentence describes a situation in the past and expresses a logical conclusion about what would have happened if a certain condition had been true. The structure uses could not have seen to refer to a past possibility and must match this with an appropriate result clause. The learner must select the option that produces a correct conditional form in the second part of the sentence. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Pankaj could not have seen us or he will have waved. Options: may, would have, should have, No improvement. The underlined phrase in the original question is he will have waved. We assume the speaker is reasoning about a past situation: if Pankaj had seen us, he would have waved. Concept / Approach: The main concept is the third conditional, which describes unreal or hypothetical situations in the past and their imagined results. The typical pattern is if plus past perfect in the condition clause and would have plus past participle in the result clause. Even when the if is not explicitly stated, the same tense logic applies. Here, could not have seen refers to a past possibility that did not occur. The corresponding result should use would have waved, not will have waved, which does not fit with past hypothetical reasoning. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Rewrite the idea in a full conditional form: If Pankaj had seen us, he would have waved. Step 2: Notice that the original sentence uses could not have seen, which already refers to a past situation. Step 3: The result part he will have waved uses future perfect will have, which is inconsistent with the past hypothetical meaning. Step 4: Consider Option B, would have, to form he would have waved, which correctly matches the third conditional pattern. Step 5: Option A, may, would not complete the clause correctly and would leave the tense structure incomplete. Step 6: Option C, should have, expresses obligation or criticism rather than a simple logical result. Step 7: No improvement would keep the incorrect will have form linked to a past condition, so it cannot be correct. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, compare with other third conditional examples: he could not have forgotten the meeting, or he would have called, she cannot have seen the message, otherwise she would have replied. In each case, the imagined result of a past condition uses would have plus the past participle. The use of will have is more appropriate when predicting that something will already be complete by a future time, as in he will have arrived by now, which does not fit the structure of this sentence. Therefore, replacing will have with would have is necessary and correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: may: On its own, may does not complete the verb phrase or match the required conditional structure; it cannot replace will have waved. should have: This modal is used to express duty or regret, as in he should have waved, and does not simply state what would have happened under a condition. No improvement: Leaving will have waved unchanged results in a tense mismatch between the past hypothetical condition and the future perfect form. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse will have and would have because they look similar. Another common mistake is ignoring the time reference and using future forms even when the context is clearly about the past. To avoid such errors, it is important to understand the patterns of conditional sentences and practise recognising when a clause refers to an unreal past situation requiring would have plus past participle in the result clause. Final Answer: The correct improvement is to use would have, giving the sentence: Pankaj could not have seen us, or he would have waved.

Question 12

A part of the sentence is underlined and may need improvement. The sentence is: Elephants live in groups in the jungle. Choose the option that best improves the underlined collective noun so that the sentence becomes more accurate and natural.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests knowledge of collective nouns in English, especially those used for groups of animals. The sentence talks about how elephants live in groups in the jungle. While the word groups is understandable, English has a more specific and standard collective noun for elephants. Using the appropriate collective noun makes the sentence more natural and precise in formal and descriptive writing. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Elephants live in groups in the jungle. Options: crowds, herds, hoards, No improvement. The underlined word in the original question is groups. The task is to choose the collective noun that correctly refers to groups of elephants living together. Concept / Approach: In English, different animals often have specific collective nouns. For large plant eating mammals like elephants, cows, and deer, the common collective noun is herd. Thus, a herd of elephants is the usual expression. Crowds is used more often for groups of people, while hoards refers to hidden stores of valuable objects or treasure, and is unrelated to animal groups. The approach is to identify which option correctly names a group of elephants in natural language. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the meaning of the original phrase: elephants live in groups in the jungle. Step 2: Recall that a group of elephants is typically called a herd of elephants. Step 3: Examine Option B, herds, and substitute it into the sentence: Elephants live in herds in the jungle. This sounds natural and correct. Step 4: Consider crowds. Crowds in the jungle suggests human gatherings, not animals in their natural social structure. Step 5: Consider hoards. A hoard is usually a hidden store of money or valuables, and hoards in the jungle makes no sense for elephants. Step 6: No improvement would keep groups, which is acceptable but less precise than herds. The exam expects the specific collective noun. Step 7: Conclude that herds is the best improvement of the underlined word. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, look at common usage in books, documentaries, and educational material. Phrases such as herds of elephants moving across the savannah and elephant herds gather near the waterhole are standard in English. When we talk about group behaviour of elephants, herd is the normal term. In contrast, crowds is associated with people in cities or events, and hoard is used in phrases like a hoard of coins or a hoard of treasure. These comparisons confirm that herds is the correct collective noun to use here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: crowds: This word is generally used for large numbers of people, especially in public places, and does not accurately refer to animal groups in the wild. hoards: A hoard is a secret or guarded store of valuables, not a word for groups of animals living together. No improvement: While groups is understandable, it does not use the appropriate and more precise collective noun that English provides for elephants. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes overlook collective nouns and rely on general words like groups or lots. Another pitfall is confusing words that sound similar, such as herd and hoard, without paying attention to their meanings. To improve, it is helpful to learn common animal related collective nouns such as herd of cattle, flock of birds, pride of lions, and school of fish, and to practise using them in sentences. Final Answer: The underlined word should be improved to herds, giving the sentence: Elephants live in herds in the jungle.

Question 13

The original sentence contains a dangling participle and is unclear. The sentence is: Taking the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade. Choose the option that best rewrites the sentence so that the meaning is clear and grammatically correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests the learner's ability to correct a dangling participle and make the sentence logically clear. In the original sentence, Taking the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade, the introductory participial phrase taking the test incorrectly appears to describe the teacher, which creates an illogical meaning. The aim is to choose the option that rewrites the beginning of the sentence so that it clearly states that the student, not the teacher, took the test and then received a passing grade. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: Taking the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade. Options: After I took the test, After taking the test, As I took the test, No improvement. The underlined segment is Taking the test. We assume the intended meaning is that I took the test, and then the teacher gave me a passing grade. Concept / Approach: A dangling participle occurs when a participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence does not logically modify the subject that follows. In the original sentence, the phrase taking the test appears to modify the noun that comes immediately after it, the teacher. This implies that the teacher took the test, which is not what the writer intends. To correct this, the subject of the participial action should be clearly stated, for example, After I took the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade. This makes it clear that I took the test and the teacher gave the grade. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Notice that the participial phrase taking the test is followed by the subject the teacher, which creates an illogical meaning. Step 2: Rewrite the sentence so that the subject who took the test is clearly identified as I. Step 3: Option A, After I took the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade, clearly shows that I took the test first and then received the grade. Step 4: Option B, After taking the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade, still suffers from the same dangling participle problem because it suggests that the teacher took the test. Step 5: Option C, As I took the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade, incorrectly suggests that the teacher gave the grade while I was still taking the test, which does not make sense. Step 6: No improvement would leave the dangling participle unchanged and therefore cannot be correct. Step 7: Conclude that Option A provides the clearest and most logical correction. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, compare the improved sentence with standard patterns in English grammar. A common way to express a sequence of events is to use after plus a subject and past tense verb, as in after I finished my homework, I went to bed. Similarly, after I took the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade clearly indicates that the test was completed and then the teacher acted. The other options either maintain the dangling participle or create a strange overlap of actions. Therefore, Option A aligns best with correct grammar and intended meaning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: After taking the test: Without a clear subject following this phrase, it still appears to modify the teacher, so the dangling participle problem remains. As I took the test: This suggests that the teacher gave the grade at the same time as the test was being taken, which is logically incorrect. No improvement: Keeping the original form preserves the grammatical error and illogical meaning, so it is not acceptable in standard English. Common Pitfalls: Learners may focus only on tense and not on who performs the action described by the participle. Another pitfall is accepting sentences that sound fluent but contain hidden logical problems. To avoid these errors, it is important to check that the subject immediately following an introductory participial phrase is the one performing the action in that phrase. If not, the sentence usually needs to be rewritten to avoid a dangling participle. Final Answer: The best improvement is After I took the test, giving the complete sentence: After I took the test, the teacher gave me a passing grade.

Question 14

Read the passage about Dr Albert Schweitzer carefully and then answer the following question. According to the passage, Dr Albert Schweitzer was the winner of which Nobel Prize and in which year?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The passage describes an incident at a Chicago railroad station in which reporters and city officials gather to welcome an important visitor. This visitor is introduced as a tall man with bushy hair and a large moustache who behaves with great humility and kindness, helping an elderly woman with her luggage. Toward the end of the passage, the narrator reveals that the man is Dr Albert Schweitzer and explicitly mentions the Nobel Prize he has received. The question asks us to recall exactly which Nobel Prize he won and in which year. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage states that people gathered to meet the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Later, it reveals that this person is Dr Albert Schweitzer, a famous missionary doctor who worked in Africa. The options mention different Nobel categories and years, including Medicine, Peace, and Chemistry, with dates 1952 and 1953. The task is to choose the option that accurately matches the information given in the passage. Concept / Approach: Reading comprehension questions like this test attention to detail. The information required is stated directly in the passage, so there is no need to infer or guess from outside knowledge. The key is to locate the exact phrase that mentions the prize and the year, then compare that wording with the options. It is important not to confuse the name of the prize category or the year, since similar looking distractors are included to catch careless reading. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the opening lines of the passage, which mention that reporters and officials were waiting for the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Step 2: Note that the person they are waiting for is later identified as Dr Albert Schweitzer. Step 3: Focus on the wording 1952 Nobel Peace Prize winner, which clearly states both the year and the category. Step 4: Compare this with Option B, which says Nobel Prize in 1952 for Peace. This exactly matches the passage. Step 5: Option A mentions Medicine, which is not supported by the passage. Step 6: Option C mentions Chemistry, another incorrect category. Step 7: Option D mentions 1953 for Peace, which changes the year and does not match the information given. Step 8: Conclude that Option B is the only correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, imagine reading the exact line again: Reporters and city officials gathered at a Chicago railroad station one afternoon in 1953. The person they were meeting was the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Even though the meeting happens in 1953, the prize itself is clearly identified as the Nobel Peace Prize of 1952. Therefore, any option suggesting 1953 as the prize year is incorrect. Also, the passage emphasises Dr Schweitzer's work as a missionary doctor serving the poor in Africa and presents him as a humanitarian figure, which naturally aligns with a peace prize rather than a prize in Medicine or Chemistry. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Nobel Prize in 1952 for Medicine: The passage never mentions a Nobel Prize for Medicine; it refers specifically to the Nobel Peace Prize. Nobel Prize in 1952 for Chemistry: There is no reference to Chemistry anywhere in the passage; this is a distractor based on a different Nobel category. Nobel Prize in 1953 for Peace: While the meeting takes place in 1953, the prize mentioned is from 1952, so the year in this option is incorrect. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to mix up dates or categories when several numbers and technical terms appear close together. Readers may also focus on the year of the meeting, 1953, and assume that the prize must be from the same year. Another pitfall is to rely on outside knowledge or guesses about a famous person instead of strictly following the passage. To avoid these errors, always go back to the text, find the exact phrase that contains the required detail, and match it carefully against the options. Final Answer: According to the passage, Dr Albert Schweitzer was the winner of the Nobel Prize in 1952 for Peace.

Question 15

Read the following comprehension passage carefully and then answer the question that follows by choosing the best option out of the four alternatives.  Reporters and city officials gathered at a Chicago railroad station one afternoon in 1953 to welc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This reading comprehension question is based on a short factual passage about Dr Albert Schweitzer, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and missionary doctor. The question asks what he delighted in, so you must focus carefully on his behaviour rather than on the praise that other people gave him. By interpreting his action at the railway station, you can infer what truly gave him happiness and satisfaction. Given Data / Assumptions: - Dr Albert Schweitzer arrives at a Chicago railway station where reporters and officials are waiting for him. - People show great honour and respect, with cameras flashing and hands outstretched. - He politely excuses himself and goes to help an elderly Black woman who is struggling with heavy suitcases. - After helping her, he returns and apologises for the delay in a very humble way. - The narrator comments that not many white people would have done this at that time. Concept / Approach: The key idea is that a person reveals their real character and sources of joy through actions, not through words or the honours they receive. A truly humane and service minded person finds delight in serving others. The question therefore tests your ability to read between the lines and identify what activity gave Dr Schweitzer genuine pleasure. Instead of enjoying only fame and formal respect, he chose to help someone who needed practical assistance. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Notice that Dr Schweitzer is an honoured guest and that everyone wants to meet him and praise him.Step 2: Observe that he interrupts this moment of honour and asks to be excused so that he can help an elderly Black woman with heavy luggage.Step 3: He smiles, carries her suitcases, escorts her to the bus, and wishes her a safe journey, which shows genuine concern.Step 4: He then returns to the officials and apologises for keeping them waiting, which shows humility rather than pride.Step 5: From these actions we infer that what really delights him is helping others, not simply being honoured by important people. Verification / Alternative check: If Dr Schweitzer delighted mainly in being honoured, he would have stayed with the officials and enjoyed the attention instead of leaving them to help a stranger. The fact that he willingly postponed his own moment of glory to assist a poor elderly woman confirms that service gave him deeper satisfaction. The remark about a "sermon walking" also suggests that his life of service itself was a living message of kindness and compassion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, "in being helped by others", is incorrect because in the passage he is the one who helps the woman, not the one who receives help. Option B, "in not being honoured", is wrong, because he does not show dislike for honour; he simply does not cling to it. Option C, "in being honoured", is misleading, since he leaves the welcoming crowd, which clearly shows that honour is not his main delight. Only option D correctly captures that he delighted in helping others. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes focus too much on the words "Nobel Peace Prize winner" and assume that his happiness came from fame and recognition. Another common mistake is to think of the question in a very literal way and ignore the deeper implication of his action. Some may even rush through the passage and miss the crucial detail that he left the crowd to assist the elderly woman. Always look at what a person chooses to do when under no obligation, because that often reveals their true preferences and values. Final Answer: The passage clearly shows that Dr Albert Schweitzer found his real joy in serving others, so the correct answer is in helping others.

Question 16

Read the following comprehension passage carefully and then answer the question that follows by choosing the best option out of the four alternatives.  Reporters and city officials gathered at a Chicago railroad station one afternoon in 1953 to welc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question again uses the same passage about Dr Albert Schweitzer at a Chicago railway station, but now it focuses on his attitude towards people of different races. You are asked to infer whether he was prejudiced or not, and in what way. The exam is testing your ability to interpret social attitudes and values from a short narrative, not just to pick literal words from the text. Given Data / Assumptions: - Dr Schweitzer is a widely honoured Nobel Peace Prize winner and a famous missionary doctor. - At the station, he leaves an important welcoming crowd in order to help an elderly Black woman with heavy suitcases. - The passage comments that not many white people would have done such a thing at that time. - The narrator emphasises that he devoted his life to serving poor people in Africa, who were largely non white populations. - We assume the social background of the 1950s, when racial discrimination and prejudice were common in many places. Concept / Approach: The concept here is racial prejudice versus humanitarian equality. A prejudiced person treats people differently because of race, while an unprejudiced person treats everyone with equal respect. The question asks you to decide whether Dr Schweitzer showed prejudice against Whites or Blacks or whether he was free from such prejudice. His behaviour towards the elderly Black woman in a racially tense context provides strong evidence of his beliefs and values. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Notice that the person whom Dr Schweitzer leaves the crowd to help is an elderly Black woman, not someone influential.Step 2: Remember that the passage states, "Not many whites would have done what he did," which highlights how unusual his behaviour was.Step 3: Understand that he treats the woman with dignity and kindness, carrying her bags, escorting her, and wishing her a safe journey.Step 4: Recognise that a racist or prejudiced white person in that time and setting would usually ignore or look down on a Black stranger.Step 5: Conclude that he was not prejudiced against Blacks; instead, he respected and helped her as a fellow human being. Verification / Alternative check: If he had been prejudiced against Blacks, he would have avoided close contact, especially in a public place in front of officials and reporters. Instead, he chose to help her even when it meant stepping away from dignitaries. There is also no suggestion that he held any negative attitude towards White people, so it would be wrong to say that he was prejudiced against Whites. His lifelong work in Africa further confirms that he treated non white communities with compassion and equality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, "was not prejudiced against Whites", is irrelevant because the passage does not show any situation where he might have discriminated against Whites; he is himself a White man being honoured by them. Option C, "was prejudiced against Whites", is incorrect and unsupported, since he cooperates politely with the officials. Option D, "was prejudiced against Blacks", directly contradicts the central incident where he helps an elderly Black woman with great kindness. Only option B, "was not prejudiced against Blacks", fits the evidence. Common Pitfalls: Some students read too quickly and notice only that the woman is Black, without linking this to the social context of racial prejudice mentioned in the line about "not many whites". Others may misinterpret the options and think that any mention of race implies prejudice, which is not true. The key is to focus on his respectful act of service, which is a clear sign of equality and lack of prejudice. Always base your answer on what the person does, not on vague assumptions. Final Answer: The passage shows that Dr Albert Schweitzer treated the elderly Black woman with equal respect and kindness, so he was not prejudiced against Blacks.

Question 17

Read the following comprehension passage carefully and then answer the question that follows by choosing the best option out of the four alternatives.  Reporters and city officials gathered at a Chicago railroad station one afternoon in 1953 to welc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question asks you to identify the character trait that best describes Dr Albert Schweitzer as shown in the passage. Instead of asking directly about facts like his height or his prize, it focuses on his nature as a human being. Such questions test your ability to interpret personality traits from actions and behaviour presented in a short story type passage. Given Data / Assumptions: - Dr Schweitzer is a highly honoured Nobel Peace Prize winner who arrives at a busy railway station. - Many important officials, reporters, and photographers gather to welcome him and show respect. - He politely excuses himself, moves away from the crowd, and goes to help an elderly Black woman with heavy suitcases. - He carries her bags, escorts her to a bus, helps her board, and wishes her a safe journey, then returns and apologises to the officials for the delay. - The narrative calls him a famous missionary doctor who spent his life helping poor people in Africa. Concept / Approach: The core concept is that a person's character is revealed by the choices they make, especially when there is no pressure to behave in a particular way. To decide whether he is proud, timid, generous, or kind and helpful, you must analyse the details of his actions. Helping a stranger, especially someone vulnerable, while being himself an honoured guest, strongly indicates kindness, humility, and a genuine desire to serve others. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that he is receiving honour, praise, and attention from important people, which could easily make someone proud.Step 2: Observe that he does not stay only with the dignitaries but chooses to leave them for a moment in order to help an elderly woman.Step 3: See that he performs practical acts of service, such as carrying her bags and escorting her, with a smile and polite words.Step 4: Understand that this behaviour shows concern for others rather than self importance or pride.Step 5: Compare the options and conclude that "a kind and helpful person" is the best description of his character. Verification / Alternative check: If he had been proud or self centred, he would have focused on the cameras and officials instead of noticing the struggling elderly woman. If he had been timid, he would have avoided drawing attention by walking away from the reception to help a stranger. His long life of service in Africa also supports the idea that he consistently helped others. These points together confirm that kindness and helpfulness are his dominant character traits. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, "a generous and friendly person", is partly positive but does not capture the strong focus on active help shown in the passage; it is too general. Option B, "a proud person", clearly conflicts with his humble act of service and his apology for keeping the officials waiting. Option C, "a timid person", is incorrect because his actions show confidence and initiative, not fearfulness. Option D, "a kind and helpful person", accurately summarises his behaviour. Common Pitfalls: Many students choose vague positive words such as "generous and friendly" without checking whether they precisely match the details of the passage. Another mistake is to ignore the long term picture given in the last line about his life of service in Africa. Remember that examiners want you to combine the specific incident with the broader description to reach a clear conclusion about character. Always look for the option that fits both the immediate scene and the overall description provided. Final Answer: The incident clearly shows that Dr Albert Schweitzer was a kind and helpful person.

Question 18

In the following question, choose the option that gives the word which is closest in meaning to the given English vocabulary word "CREDULOUS". The word "credulous" describes a person who believes things too easily and trusts other people without eno…

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This vocabulary question asks you to find the synonym, or word with a similar meaning, for the adjective "credulous". Synonym questions are common in competitive exams because they measure how accurately you understand fine differences between related words. Knowing the exact sense of "credulous" helps you avoid confusion between words like "innocent", "silly", and "gullible". Given Data / Assumptions: - The target word is "credulous". - Four options are provided: FUNNY, SILLY, INNOCENT, and GULLIBLE. - Only one option should have a meaning that closely matches "credulous". - We assume standard modern English usage as found in good dictionaries and exam syllabi. Concept / Approach: "Credulous" refers to a person who is too ready to believe what others say, especially without sufficient evidence. Such a person is easily convinced and may be cheated because of excessive trust. The closest everyday word for this idea is "gullible". Although "innocent" and "silly" can describe naive people, they are not exact matches. The approach is to define each option clearly and then compare it with the definition of "credulous". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that "credulous" means too ready to believe, or showing a tendency to believe things that may not be true.Step 2: Examine "gullible". A gullible person is easily tricked because they believe what they are told without enough questioning.Step 3: Compare "gullible" with "credulous" and see that both describe people who accept things too easily.Step 4: Look at "innocent". It mainly means free from guilt or wrongdoing, and only indirectly suggests lack of worldly experience.Step 5: Look at "funny" and "silly". These are about humour or foolish behaviour, not specifically about believing others too easily. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by consulting a good dictionary or vocabulary book. Most sources will connect "credulous" directly with "gullible". In exam oriented vocabulary lists, these two words are often grouped together. Another check is to use the words in a sentence, for example, "The credulous customer believed every claim made by the salesman" and "The gullible customer believed every claim made by the salesman". Both sentences feel natural and very close in meaning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, FUNNY, means amusing or causing laughter, which has nothing to do with belief or trust. Option B, SILLY, means foolish or lacking good sense, and although a credulous person may sometimes act silly, the main idea of belief is missing. Option C, INNOCENT, mainly refers to someone not guilty or free from moral wrong, and only occasionally implies lack of experience. None of these capture the idea of being too ready to believe others. Only option D, GULLIBLE, directly matches that meaning. Common Pitfalls: Students often pick INNOCENT because both "innocent" and "credulous" can suggest a simple or naive nature. However, exams usually look for the word that shares the central, not just a side, meaning. Another trap is to choose SILLY because credulous people can be fooled, but again, silliness is about poor judgement in general, not specifically about belief. To succeed in such questions, always focus on the core definition rather than on loose associations. Final Answer: The word that is closest in meaning to "credulous" is GULLIBLE.

Question 19

In the following question, choose the word which is opposite in meaning (antonym) to the given word "REASSURE". To reassure someone means to remove their doubts or fears and make them feel confident or safe again.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question asks for the antonym of the word "reassure". Antonyms are words with opposite meanings, and they are frequently tested in competitive exams to check both vocabulary range and depth. Understanding what it means to reassure someone makes it easier to recognise the opposite action, which is to weaken somebody's confidence or increase their fear or doubt. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: "reassure". - Options: COMFORT, CONSOLE, INSPIRE, DISCOURAGE. - Exactly one option must express an opposite meaning, not a similar one. - We assume the standard meanings used in general English and exam contexts. Concept / Approach: "Reassure" means to say or do something that removes someone's doubts or fears and makes them feel calm and confident again. The opposite action would increase doubt or reduce confidence. Therefore, the correct antonym will involve causing someone to feel less hopeful, less confident, or less willing to act. Words like "comfort", "console", and "inspire" all have positive or supportive meanings, so they are unlikely to be the true opposite. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Define "reassure" as making someone feel more confident, safe, or sure that things will be fine.Step 2: Look at COMFORT. To comfort is to make someone feel better when they are upset, which is close in feeling to reassuring them.Step 3: Look at CONSOLE. To console is also to give emotional support and ease someone's grief or disappointment, again similar to reassuring.Step 4: Look at INSPIRE. To inspire is to fill someone with positive feelings, ideas, or enthusiasm, which supports confidence.Step 5: Look at DISCOURAGE. To discourage is to cause someone to lose confidence or enthusiasm, which is directly opposite to reassuring. Verification / Alternative check: Place the words into a sentence. If you say, "The teacher reassured the students before the exam," the opposite would be, "The teacher discouraged the students before the exam," which means the teacher made them feel less confident. Sentences using "comforted", "consoled", or "inspired" would not give an opposite sense; they would still sound supportive. This comparison confirms that "discourage" is the antonym we are looking for. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, COMFORT, is incorrect because comforting someone helps them feel better, which is similar to reassuring. Option B, CONSOLE, again provides emotional support and reduces sadness, so it reinforces confidence instead of weakening it. Option C, INSPIRE, fills someone with enthusiasm, hope, or creativity, which is certainly not the opposite of reassurance. Only option D, DISCOURAGE, carries the clear opposite idea of making someone less confident or hopeful. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse "reassure" with "console" or "comfort" and may think that the exam is testing near synonyms rather than an antonym. Because three of the options are positive and supportive, candidates may overthink and choose the one that simply sounds slightly different. To avoid this, always start by writing down the basic meaning of the question word and then actively search for the word that reverses that meaning. That method makes the contrast between "reassure" and "discourage" very clear. Final Answer: The word that is opposite in meaning to "reassure" is DISCOURAGE.

Question 20

Four words are given below, out of which only one word is spelt correctly in standard English. This question tests your ability to recognise correct spelling. Choose the correctly spelt word.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Spelling questions check your familiarity with common English words as they are correctly written. In competitive exams, spellings are chosen so that they sound similar but only one is acceptable in standard written English. Here you must pick the correct spelling of the noun that means resistance or open disobedience to authority, which is "defiance". Given Data / Assumptions: - You are given four visually similar spellings: Defianse, Defyance, Difiance, and Defiance. - Only one of these matches the standard dictionary spelling of the word meaning resistance or bold disobedience. - We assume you are familiar with common English spelling patterns such as the suffix "-ance". Concept / Approach: The word in question is "defiance". It comes from the verb "defy", but when forming the noun, the spelling changes and we use the suffix "-ance" rather than directly inserting a "y". Many English nouns of this type end with "-ance" or "-ence", and a good vocabulary book will highlight such patterns. The method is to recall the correct spelling if you know it, or to eliminate obviously incorrect patterns that violate common spelling rules. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Think of the correct word in a sentence, for example, "The protestors showed defiance in front of the authorities."Step 2: Visualise the spelling you normally see in books and articles, which is "defiance".Step 3: Compare each option. "Defianse" ends with "anse", which is not the usual "-ance" ending.Step 4: "Defyance" inserts a "y" between "f" and "a", which does not match the standard noun form.Step 5: "Difiance" has the vowels in the wrong place, starting with "Di" instead of "De". Only "Defiance" follows the correct pattern. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by consulting a dictionary or spelling list, where the only recognised spelling will be "defiance". Another mental check is to recall related words: the adjective "defiant" and the verb "defy". While "defy" contains a "y", the noun removes the "y" and adds "-ance" in the usual way. This reinforces that option D is the valid spelling. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, "Defianse", is incorrect because the final letters "anse" do not match the common English suffix "-ance". Option B, "Defyance", wrongly mixes the verb form "defy" with the noun suffix, creating a non standard spelling. Option C, "Difiance", starts with "Di" and changes the first vowel, making it a different and incorrect word form. None of these appear in standard dictionaries. Only option D, "Defiance", is correct. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates get confused because they see the root "defy" and then try to preserve the "y" in the noun form. This is a common error when building words from a base verb. To avoid such mistakes, it is helpful to learn families of words together, like "defy, defiant, defiance". Additionally, paying attention to typical endings such as "-ance", "-ence", "-tion", and "-sion" will make spelling questions much easier in exams. Final Answer: The correctly spelt word in the list is Defiance.

English Questions