Question 1

In this Direct and Indirect speech question, the sentence What makes you so sad, she asked Manoj must be reported in indirect speech, and you have to choose the option that correctly conveys the question in reported form with proper tense and pronou…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Questions on direct and indirect speech require you to convert a quoted sentence into reported form while respecting changes in tense, pronouns, and word order. In this case, the direct question is what makes you so sad, she asked Manoj. We need to convert this into indirect speech, where the reporting verb is asked and the question word what introduces the reported clause. Because the reporting verb is in the past tense, the tense of the verb inside the reported question usually shifts back, and pronouns should change according to who is speaking and who is being spoken to. Given Data / Assumptions: Direct speech: What makes you so sad, she asked Manoj. Reporting verb: asked, which is in the past tense. Listener in the original sentence: Manoj, who corresponds to he in reported speech. The question begins with the interrogative word what, not with an auxiliary verb. We assume normal backshift of tense from present to past in indirect speech. Concept / Approach: When converting a wh question from direct to indirect speech, we keep the wh word, use a statement word order in the reported clause, and adjust tenses and pronouns. The simple present makes changes to simple past made, because the reporting verb asked is in the past. The pronoun you refers to Manoj, so it becomes him or he depending on its position in the sentence. Since you is the subject of makes in the direct sentence, the equivalent subject in indirect speech will be he, but inside the object clause we use him after made to form what made him so sad. The word order changes from what makes you so sad to what made him so sad, but we do not use a question mark in the reported sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the reporting verb asked and note that it is in the past tense, which will trigger backshift of tense. Step 2: Keep the question word what in the beginning of the reported clause, because wh words remain in both direct and indirect speech. Step 3: Change makes to made to reflect the shift from simple present to simple past, and replace you with him to refer to Manoj in the third person. Step 4: Combine these elements to form the reported sentence She asked Manoj what made him so sad, which has normal statement word order and correct tense and pronoun usage. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify our answer by checking each grammatical requirement. First, the reporting verb asked remains unchanged and correctly introduces the indirect question. Second, the wh word what appears at the start of the reported clause, so the question meaning is preserved. Third, the tense backshift from makes to made is correctly applied, because the reporting verb is in the past. Fourth, the pronoun you has been converted to him, which matches Manoj viewed from the speaker position. Finally, the sentence uses statement order rather than question order; we say what made him so sad, not what made him so sad question mark. This matches the standard pattern of indirect wh questions and confirms that the chosen option is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: She asked Manoj what makes him so sad fails to backshift the tense, leaving makes in simple present even though the reporting verb is in the past, which is normally incorrect in reported speech. She asks Manoj what made him so sad uses the present tense asks for the reporting verb while using made in the reported clause, producing an inconsistent and illogical time reference. She asks Manoj what makes him so sad uses present tense throughout and therefore does not correspond to the original past context given in the question. She asked Manoj why was he so sad changes the question word from what to why and incorrectly inverts the subject and verb in the reported clause, giving a direct question pattern instead of statement order. All these options violate one or more rules of indirect speech. Common Pitfalls: Many learners forget to backshift tense when the reporting verb is in the past, especially if the idea seems still true in the present. Others incorrectly preserve the direct question word order, using structures like what made him so sad with auxiliary inversion, which is not acceptable in indirect speech. Some candidates also change the wh word itself, for instance replacing what with why even though the original question asked what makes you so sad. To avoid these errors, always check three things carefully: the tense of the reporting verb, the wh word used, and the final word order of the reported clause. The reported clause should look like a normal statement, not like a direct question. Final Answer: The correct indirect speech form is She asked Manoj what made him so sad.

Question 2

Based on the reading passage about the TRAPPIST exoplanet system and preconditions for life, this comprehension question asks you to identify the country in which the telescope named TRAPPIST, used for the initial discovery of three planets, is loca…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is a reading comprehension item based on a passage describing the discovery of seven Earth size exoplanets in the TRAPPIST system. The passage explains how astronomers identified these planets, why they are important for the search for life, and which instruments were used to detect them. Among the details mentioned is the name of the telescope and its location. The exam tests your ability to pick out a specific factual detail from the passage, namely the country where the telescope called TRAPPIST is based. Such questions reward careful reading and accurate recall rather than complicated reasoning. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage refers to an exoplanet system called TRAPPIST 1. It states that the initial discovery of three planets was made using a telescope called Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope. The passage further mentions that this telescope is based in a specific country in South America. Four country options are given, and one extra option has been added here for completeness. We assume the reader has read the passage carefully before attempting the question. Concept / Approach: The strategy for this type of question is straightforward location of information. Identify the sentence in the passage that talks about the telescope TRAPPIST and note the phrase that tells you where it is based. Once you have located that sentence, you simply match the mentioned country with the options provided. There is no need to infer or interpret beyond what is clearly stated. However, you must resist confusing this detail with other astronomical facilities or with countries that are often mentioned in astronomy news, such as the United States or European nations. Attention to the exact wording of the passage is crucial. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall or locate in the passage the sentence that contains the phrase Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope. Step 2: Read the full sentence carefully and identify the geographical detail mentioned about this telescope. Step 3: Note that the passage states that the telescope is Chile based, clearly naming the country. Step 4: Compare this information with the options provided and select Chile as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider whether any of the other listed countries are mentioned in the passage. Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico, and Peru are not associated with the TRAPPIST telescope in the text. The passage specifically connects the term Chile based with Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope. Because reading comprehension questions are based on the exact content of the passage, answers that are not explicitly supported by the text must be rejected. Even if you know from external knowledge that Chile hosts many important observatories, the deciding factor in this exam question is the explicit mention in the passage, which aligns with option C, Chile. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Venezuela is incorrect because the passage does not state that TRAPPIST is located there, and this country is not associated with the telescope in the description. Argentina is also wrong for the same reason; it appears only as a distractor and has no connection to the instrument mentioned. Mexico, despite having its own observatories, is not linked to the TRAPPIST telescope in the text. Peru is frequently involved in astronomical observations but is not named in the passage. Since none of these countries are explicitly stated as the base of the telescope, they cannot be correct choices. Common Pitfalls: One common error is answering based on general knowledge instead of the passage. A candidate might know that several observatories are situated in different South American countries and guess randomly instead of rereading the relevant line. Another pitfall is confusing TRAPPIST with other instruments or projects that may be based in different nations, leading to misremembered details. To avoid such mistakes, always return to the exact wording in the passage for factual questions and underline the key phrase that answers the question directly. Good exam practice includes marking important proper nouns, such as names of telescopes and countries, while reading. Final Answer: The TRAPPIST telescope described in the passage is based in Chile.

Question 3

From the passage about seven Earth size exoplanets around the star TRAPPIST 1, this comprehension question asks you to identify which factor is described as essential for the possibility of life on a planet, according to the author of the passage.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The passage on the TRAPPIST 1 system discusses why the discovery of seven Earth size exoplanets is exciting for the search for life beyond our solar system. It highlights that all seven planets could possibly have liquid water and that three of them have the greatest chance. In many scientific discussions, liquid water is treated as a key requirement for life as we currently understand it. This question checks whether you can identify precisely which factor the passage emphasises as essential for the possibility of life on a planet, based on the author description rather than general scientific knowledge alone. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage mentions seven Earth size planets orbiting a dwarf star. It states that all seven could possibly have liquid water, with three having the greatest chance. It specifically calls liquid water a key to life as we know it on Earth. The options list several physical conditions that can influence habitability, such as atmosphere, gravity, sunlight, liquid water, and magnetic field. The question asks for what is essential to have the possibility of life, according to the passage. Concept / Approach: In reading comprehension, it is important to distinguish what the passage explicitly says from what you might know from science or other sources. The safest approach is to locate the phrase where the author directly relates a condition to the possibility of life. The passage states that liquid water is a key to life as we know it on Earth. It also explains that the Goldilocks zone is defined partly by the potential presence of liquid water on a planet surface. Therefore, when the question asks what is essential for life possibility, the answer must be the condition that the author calls a key to life, which is the presence of liquid water. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Revisit the part of the passage that describes the seven exoplanets and their potential to support life. Step 2: Identify the sentence that mentions a key to life as we know it on Earth, and note the term linked with that phrase. Step 3: Observe that the passage clearly states that liquid water is that key factor. Step 4: Match this information with the options and select Presence of liquid water as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, compare each option with the passage. Presence of atmosphere, gravity, sunlight, and a magnetic field are important for planetary conditions but are not specifically labeled as keys to life in the text. Only liquid water receives that special emphasis. Additionally, the description of the Goldilocks zone highlights that planets in this region are at a distance where liquid water could exist on their surfaces. Because the passage repeatedly links the idea of potential life with liquid water and does not give similar prominence to the other listed conditions, we can confidently conclude that liquid water is the essential factor in the author view. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Presence of atmosphere is an important factor for habitability, but the passage does not label it as the key to life, so choosing it would be based on outside knowledge rather than the text. Presence of gravity is a basic property of all massive bodies and again is not singled out in the passage as a special condition for life. Presence of sunlight is important for surface temperature and energy, yet the passage emphasises the balance between too much and too little radiation mainly in relation to liquid water. Presence of a magnetic field can protect a planet from solar radiation, but this detail is not covered at all in the passage, so it cannot be the correct answer. Only the presence of liquid water is explicitly presented as central to the search for life. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to rely on general science knowledge when answering reading comprehension questions, leading candidates to focus on atmosphere or sunlight instead of what the passage stresses. Another pitfall is skimming the text and remembering that several conditions were discussed without remembering which one was highlighted as a key. To avoid such errors, underline or mentally mark phrases like key to life or crucial factor when reading scientific passages. Then, when the question asks for what is essential, you can quickly connect it to the emphasised phrase instead of guessing from general understanding. Final Answer: According to the passage, the essential factor for the possibility of life on a planet is the presence of liquid water.

Question 4

In this reading comprehension question about the TRAPPIST 1 planetary system, you must explain what is meant by the Goldilocks zone, that special region around a star where a planet has the right conditions to possibly have liquid water on its surfa…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The passage about the TRAPPIST 1 system explains the concept of a habitable zone around a star, commonly called the Goldilocks zone. This region is described as neither too close nor too far from the star, which makes it possible for liquid water to exist on the surface of a planet. The term Goldilocks refers to a situation that is just right, borrowing from a popular fairy tale. The question asks you to choose the option that best captures this scientific idea as it is presented in the passage, focusing on the relation between distance from the star and the presence of liquid water. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage defines the Goldilocks zone as the region around a star that is neither too close nor too far. This zone raises the possibility of liquid water being present on the surface of a planet. The question asks what the Goldilocks zone is, offering various interpretations. The options include both incorrect and partially correct descriptions of planetary conditions. We assume the reader understands that the question is about the region relative to a star, not a place within a planet or a star. Concept / Approach: To answer correctly, focus on the description given in the passage. The Goldilocks zone is defined by distance from the star rather than a specific area on the planet or inside the star. The main purpose of this zone is to allow temperatures that can keep water in liquid form on the planetary surface. Therefore, the best option will mention correct distance from the star and the possibility of liquid water. Options that talk about mythological places, lowest possibility of water, or right amount of sunlight on a specific spot on the planet do not match the passage explanation and should be rejected. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the exact wording of the passage that describes the Goldilocks zone as neither too close nor too far from a star. Step 2: Note that this description is directly linked to the possibility of liquid water on the surface of a planet. Step 3: Compare each option with this understanding and look for the one that mentions correct distance from the star and the possibility of liquid water. Step 4: Identify that option C, which describes the correct distance of a planet from its star to have possibility of having liquid water, matches the passage and select it. Verification / Alternative check: Verify your choice by examining the other options. Option A refers to a mythological place, which has nothing to do with the scientific description in the passage. Option B suggests the lowest possibility of liquid water, which contradicts the idea of a habitable zone where water could exist in liquid form. Option D talks about that place on a planet which has the right amount of sunlight, focusing on a local spot rather than a distance from the star and missing the central idea of orbital position. Option E mentions a region inside a star where nuclear reactions start, which describes the core of a star and is completely unrelated to habitability. Only option C accurately summarises the balanced distance from the star that allows for liquid water, consistent with the passage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because the Goldilocks zone is a scientific term, not a mythical location, even though the name is inspired by a fairy tale. Option B is incorrect because the passage links the zone to a higher, not a lower, possibility of liquid water. Option D misplaces the concept by focusing on a place on the planet surface rather than the orbital zone around the star, and by mentioning sunlight instead of the overall temperature conditions that support liquid water. Option E confuses stellar physics with planetary habitability, talking about nuclear reactions inside stars which the passage never connects with the Goldilocks concept. Therefore, all these alternatives fail to capture the essence of the definition given in the passage. Common Pitfalls: Many students focus on key words like sunlight or warm and assume that any option mentioning light or temperature is correct, even if the description is incomplete or misplaced. Another common mistake is to interpret Goldilocks zone as a location on a planet surface, possibly because of everyday language, rather than an orbital region around a star. Some candidates also associate Goldilocks only with comfort, without connecting it to the scientific idea of liquid water. To avoid these mistakes, always ask yourself what the passage literally says. In this case, the crucial points are distance from the star, being neither too close nor too far, and the possibility of liquid water. Final Answer: The Goldilocks zone is the correct distance of a planet from its star to have possibility of having liquid water.

Question 5

In this comprehension question drawn from the passage on the TRAPPIST 1 exoplanet system, you must identify which factor made it easier for astronomers on Earth to record the dimming of starlight when the planets passed in front of their star.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The passage about the TRAPPIST 1 system explains how astronomers detected the presence of seven Earth size planets by observing the dimming of their host star when the planets passed in front of it. This process is known as a transit. The author points out that certain properties of the star helped make these transits easier to detect from Earth. Specifically, the star is much cooler and smaller than our Sun, which affects how clearly the dimming of light can be recorded. The question asks you to choose the statement that best reflects this explanation from the passage. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage states that the star around which these planets orbit is a dwarf star. It explicitly mentions that the dwarf star is much cooler than the Sun. Because of this property, the dimming of light during a transit is easier to record from Earth. The options offer different combinations of size and temperature in comparison with our Sun. We assume the reader knows that the correct option must match the phrasing in the passage. Concept / Approach: To solve this question, locate the part of the passage that talks about the recording of transits. The key phrase mentions that since the dwarf star is much cooler than the Sun, the dimming of light each time a planet passes in front of it can be easily recorded from Earth. A dwarf star is also generally smaller than a star like our Sun. One must choose the option that mentions both the smaller size and cooler temperature, because that combination aligns with the description in the text. Options that mention bigger or hotter stars contradict the passage and should be rejected. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the sentence in the passage describing why the dimming of light during planetary transits could be easily recorded. Step 2: Note that the star is described as a dwarf star that is much cooler than the Sun, which implies it is smaller as well. Step 3: Examine the options and look for the one that combines smaller size and cooler temperature in comparison with our Sun. Step 4: Select the option that states the fact that the star is much smaller and cooler than our Sun, as this best matches the passage. Verification / Alternative check: Verify your answer by comparing all listed alternatives with the contextual information. The passage never suggests that the star is bigger or hotter than our Sun. In fact, any option that describes a bigger or hotter star conflicts with the idea of a cool dwarf star. The only option that correctly brings together the idea of the star being smaller and cooler is option A. Additionally, there is no mention of a thick nebula around the star in the passage, so option E introduces information that is not present in the text and must be discarded. This cross checking confirms that option A is the only correct interpretation of the author explanation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B suggests that the star is much bigger and cooler than our Sun, which contradicts the description of a dwarf star and does not appear in the passage. Option C describes the star as smaller and hotter than the Sun, mixing one correct concept with one incorrect property and therefore failing to match the text. Option D claims the star is much bigger and hotter, which is the opposite of what a dwarf star is and has no support in the passage. Option E introduces the idea of a thick nebula around the star, which is not mentioned at all and thus cannot explain why the transits were easier to record. Each of these alternatives either contradicts or adds information that is not in the passage. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that a brighter and hotter star would make observations easier because it emits more light, leading them to select options that mention bigger or hotter stars. This ignores the reasoning offered in the passage. Another pitfall is to overinterpret the term dwarf star and guess about size without reading the supporting sentence about temperature and observation. Some candidates also get distracted by additional scientific sounding phrases like thick nebula and pick an answer that seems elaborate rather than accurate. To avoid these mistakes, always base your answer solely on statements explicitly made in the passage and ignore any outside assumptions or extra details not mentioned in the text. Final Answer: The easier recording of the planetary transits was due to the fact that the star is much smaller and cooler than our Sun.

Question 6

In this question based on the TRAPPIST 1 passage, you must recall how many planets in our own solar system are stated to have liquid water, according to the information provided in the text.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The passage that discusses the TRAPPIST 1 system uses our own solar system as a point of comparison when talking about liquid water. It stresses how special the seven Earth size exoplanets are because they may have liquid water, and then contrasts this with the situation in our solar system. The text explicitly states how many planets in our system currently have liquid water. This question tests your ability to recall that specific factual detail rather than interpret or infer from general science knowledge. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage notes that the seven TRAPPIST 1 planets could possibly have liquid water. It then contrasts this with the situation in the solar system we live in. The passage clearly states that only Earth has liquid water in the solar system. The options provide different possible counts of planets with liquid water. We assume the reader understands that the question refers to the explicit wording of the passage. Concept / Approach: In reading comprehension, the most reliable method for fact based questions is to locate the exact sentence that mentions the required information. Here, the important line is the one that declares that only Earth has liquid water in the solar system. The phrase only Earth implies a count of one. Therefore, regardless of any scientific discussion about possible subsurface oceans on other moons or planets, the correct answer must reflect the passage wording. Focus on the expression only Earth and convert it into the numerical value that best matches among the options, which is one. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the sentence in the passage that compares the TRAPPIST planets with planets in our solar system regarding liquid water. Step 2: Note the specific phrase used, which states that only Earth has liquid water in the solar system. Step 3: Understand that only Earth means that exactly one planet has liquid water. Step 4: Select the option One, which correctly represents this count in numerical form. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, examine each option and consider whether it fits the wording only Earth. If there were two, three, or more planets with liquid water, the passage would not use only to single out Earth. Options claiming two, three, four, or five planets contradict the explicit statement. Furthermore, the focus of the passage is to show why the TRAPPIST discovery is remarkable when compared with the situation in our solar system, and emphasising that only one planet currently has liquid water strengthens that contrast. Thus, the logical and textual evidence supports choosing One as the correct answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Two, three, four, and five are all incorrect because they directly conflict with the phrase only Earth used in the passage. None of these numbers can be reconciled with the wording that singles out only one planet. While scientific discussions may consider water in different states on moons or dwarf planets, this is beyond the scope of the passage. The exam expects you to answer according to the text provided, not external sources. Therefore, any number greater than one must be rejected as inconsistent with the passage. Common Pitfalls: A common pitfall is to rely on general astronomy knowledge about icy moons or suspected subsurface oceans and to reason that more than one body in the solar system has water. However, the passage is about liquid water and uses a simple comparison, highlighting Earth as the only planet with liquid water. Another mistake is careless reading, where students recall that water was mentioned but forget the precise qualifier only Earth. To avoid such errors, always underline key quantifiers like only, all, or several when reading a passage, as these words often become the basis of exam questions. Final Answer: According to the passage, there is one planet in our solar system that has liquid water, namely Earth.

Question 7

In the following English grammar question, read the sentence with labelled parts and identify which part (A), (B), (C) or (D) contains an error: Millions of Jews lost (A) / their kith and kin (B) / in Hitler concentration camps. (C) / No error (D).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Error spotting questions test how carefully you can examine a sentence and locate the exact part that violates standard English grammar or usage. In this sentence, the candidate must decide which segment, marked as (A), (B), (C), or (D), contains the error. The sentence talks about Millions of Jews and their suffering in concentration camps during the time of Hitler, and the error is subtle but important because it involves the correct possessive form and use of a noun phrase for historical reference. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): Millions of Jews lost Part (B): their kith and kin Part (C): in Hitler concentration camps. Part (D): No error. The task is to identify which part contains a grammatical or usage mistake. Concept / Approach: The key idea in this question is correct use of possessives and descriptive noun phrases. When we refer to concentration camps run by Hitler, we normally use a possessive form such as Hitler's concentration camps or a descriptive phrase such as Nazi concentration camps. The phrase in Hitler concentration camps is not idiomatic in standard English because Hitler is used like an adjective without the required possessive marker or additional descriptive noun. The other parts of the sentence are grammatically sound: Millions of Jews lost is correct subject and verb, and their kith and kin is a standard idiom meaning friends and relatives. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check part (A): Millions of Jews lost. This is grammatically correct, as lost is the past tense verb matching the plural subject. Step 2: Check part (B): their kith and kin. This is a correct idiomatic expression meaning their friends and relatives. Step 3: Check part (C): in Hitler concentration camps. Here, the phrase is awkward and incomplete, because we expect Hitler's concentration camps or Nazi concentration camps. Step 4: Conclude that part (C) is the segment containing the error, and therefore the correct option is C. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the sentence correctly: Millions of Jews lost their kith and kin in Hitler's concentration camps. Now the phrase is in a natural and historically accurate form. If we leave it as in Hitler concentration camps, native speakers would immediately sense that some possessive or descriptive element is missing. Parts (A) and (B) read naturally even when isolated, while part (C) sounds incomplete until we add the possessive marker. This confirms that the error lies in part (C) and not in the other segments of the sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is incorrect as the error location because Millions of Jews lost is a standard plural noun phrase followed by a past tense verb and is grammatically sound. Option B is also correct usage; the expression kith and kin is an accepted idiom in English and does not need any change. Option D, No error, is wrong because we have clearly identified a mistake in part (C). Therefore, only option C accurately points to the phrase that must be corrected to make the sentence fully grammatical and idiomatic. Common Pitfalls: One common pitfall is to be distracted by the idiomatic phrase kith and kin and assume it is wrong simply because it is unfamiliar. Another mistake is to miss the subtle possessive issue and wrongly believe that in Hitler concentration camps is acceptable. Error spotting questions often hide the mistake in phrases that refer to ownership or association, so it is important to check whether a possessive form like apostrophe s is needed. Students should train themselves to examine prepositional phrases and descriptive noun groups carefully to avoid overlooking such issues. Final Answer: The error occurs in part (C), so the correct answer is C.

Question 8

In the following sentence improvement question, read the labelled sentence Mother-in-laws (A) / are (B) / a nuisance. (C) / No Error (D) and choose which part (A), (B), (C) or (D) contains the grammatical error.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of correct plural formation for compound nouns in English. The sentence is divided into three labelled parts plus a No Error option. You must determine which part contains a grammatical mistake. The sentence talks about mother-in-law as a family relationship and tries to use a plural form. Many learners are confused about where to add the plural ending in compound nouns of this type, so examiners frequently use such examples in error spotting questions. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): Mother-in-laws Part (B): are Part (C): a nuisance. Part (D): No Error. The intended meaning is that mothers-in-law as a group are a nuisance. Concept / Approach: In English, when forming the plural of compound nouns like mother-in-law, the main noun is pluralised, not the entire compound. The main noun here is mother, not law. Therefore, the correct plural form is mothers-in-law, not mother-in-laws. The verb are in part (B) correctly agrees with a plural subject, and the predicate a nuisance is acceptable as a general comment about the group. Consequently, the only error is in the plural form used in part (A), where the plural marker has been attached to the wrong part of the compound noun. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the structure of the subject in part (A), which is mother-in-laws. Step 2: Recall the rule that in compounds like mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law, the main noun (mother, father, sister) takes the plural, forming mothers-in-law, fathers-in-law, and sisters-in-law. Step 3: Recognise that mother-in-laws incorrectly pluralises the last element instead of the main noun. Step 4: Check parts (B) and (C) and see that are a nuisance is grammatically fine for a plural subject, so the only error is in part (A). Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the whole sentence correctly: Mothers-in-law are a nuisance. This version sounds natural and follows standard grammar rules for pluralising compound nouns. If we try to retain the original form, Mother-in-laws are a nuisance, it looks and sounds odd to native speakers and does not match the pattern used in trusted dictionaries and grammar books. Because the verb are agrees with a plural subject and the phrase a nuisance is standard in such comments, there is no need to change parts (B) or (C). All evidence points to part (A) as the only incorrect segment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B is not the error because are correctly matches the plural subject mothers-in-law. Changing it to is would create a subject verb disagreement, so are is correct. Option C is also fine, because the phrase a nuisance is a normal way to describe something or someone that causes irritation or trouble. Option D, No Error, cannot be chosen because we have identified a clear, rule based mistake in part (A). Therefore, the only reasonable choice is option A, which marks the compound noun with the incorrect plural form. Common Pitfalls: Students often misplace the plural ending in compound nouns. They may assume that the plural marker must come at the very end of the word, which leads them to forms like mother-in-laws instead of mothers-in-law. Another common issue is overthinking the article a in the predicate and mistakenly trying to change it, even though it is correct for generic statements. To avoid errors, remember that in such compounds, the central noun carries the plural, while the rest of the compound remains unchanged. Practising with similar examples like brothers-in-law, daughters-in-law, and sons-in-law can help fix the pattern in memory. Final Answer: The grammatical error is in part (A), so the correct answer is A.

Question 9

In the following error spotting sentence, read the labelled parts and decide which part (A), (B), (C) or (D) contains the error: Today people is ignorant (A) / of the things that (B) / are happening around them. (C) / No Error (D).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on subject verb agreement in English. The sentence is divided into parts (A), (B), (C), and (D), and candidates must identify where the grammatical mistake lies. The sentence comments on how people today are unaware of what is happening around them. The key issue is matching the verb form to the plural subject people, which is a common area of confusion for learners because people is plural in form and meaning but sometimes treated incorrectly as singular. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): Today people is ignorant Part (B): of the things that Part (C): are happening around them. Part (D): No Error. The intended statement is a general truth about people in the present time. Concept / Approach: The central concept here is agreement between the subject and its verb. The noun people is plural and therefore requires a plural verb are rather than the singular is. The phrase Today people is ignorant violates this rule. On the other hand, in part (C), the verb are correctly agrees with the plural relative pronoun that refers back to things, so that segment is already correct. Thus we must target the part that pairs the plural subject people with the singular verb is and identify that as the error in the sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the subject in part (A): people, which is a plural noun referring to more than one person. Step 2: Check the verb used with this subject, which is is, a singular form of the verb to be. Step 3: Apply the subject verb agreement rule: plural subjects require plural verbs, so the verb should be are, not is. Step 4: Confirm that parts (B) and (C) are grammatically correct and that no other disagreement exists in the sentence. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the sentence correctly as Today people are ignorant of the things that are happening around them. Now, the verb are correctly matches the plural subject people, and the relative clause are happening around them also agrees with its plural subject things. The sentence sounds natural and grammatically balanced. If we keep the original phrase Today people is ignorant, the mismatch between plural people and singular is is immediately noticeable to a trained reader. Hence, the only segment that needs correction is part (A), and the rest of the sentence should remain unchanged. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, of the things that, is a correct prepositional phrase introducing a relative clause and does not contain any grammatical mistake. Option C, are happening around them, is correct because the verb are agrees with the plural subject things, and the phrase around them correctly refers back to people. Option D, No Error, cannot be correct because we have clearly found a subject verb agreement error in part (A). Therefore, only option A correctly identifies the segment that violates standard English grammar rules. Common Pitfalls: Many learners see the word people and may momentarily think of it as a collective singular, leading them to pair it with is. However, in standard English, people is plural, and person is the corresponding singular form. Another pitfall is focusing only on the relative clause are happening around them and trying to change are to is, which would then create a new error. To avoid such mistakes, always start by finding the main subject and the main verb of the sentence and checking their agreement first. Once that is correct, you can examine subordinate clauses for consistency. Final Answer: The error is in part (A), so the correct answer is A.

Question 10

In the following error spotting question, read the labelled sentence I think so (A) / you have taken (B) / the right decision. (C) / No Error (D) and choose the part (A), (B), (C) or (D) that contains the mistake in standard English usage.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines correct idiomatic usage in English, particularly in how the phrase I think is used before a that clause. The sentence is broken into four labelled parts, and you must decide which part contains a usage error. The speaker wants to say that in their opinion, someone has taken the right decision. The problem lies not in grammar at the level of verb forms, but in a small, unnecessary word that makes the expression unidiomatic in this context, which is a common type of exam trap in error spotting questions. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): I think so Part (B): you have taken Part (C): the right decision. Part (D): No Error. The intended meaning is I think you have taken the right decision. Concept / Approach: The key concept is the difference between I think and I think so in English. The phrase I think so is used when responding to a yes or no question, for example, Will it rain today? I think so. However, when you introduce a full clause explaining your opinion, such as you have taken the right decision, we normally say I think you have taken the right decision and do not insert so between think and the clause. Therefore, the use of so in this sentence is incorrect and unidiomatic. The rest of the sentence, including the present perfect verb have taken and the noun phrase the right decision, is grammatically correct. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (A), I think so, and ask whether so is necessary when followed by a full clause in part (B). Step 2: Recall that I think so is used to answer yes or no questions, not to introduce a complete that type clause. Step 3: Check parts (B) and (C) and see that you have taken the right decision is grammatically well formed in present perfect tense. Step 4: Conclude that the extra word so in part (A) is the usage error that the question expects you to find. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the sentence in a natural way: I think you have taken the right decision. This version is idiomatic and conveys a clear opinion. If someone had asked, Have I taken the right decision?, an appropriate short answer would be I think so, but that would stand alone, not be followed by you have taken the right decision. Thus, combining I think so with a full clause is redundant and unnatural. This confirms that the sentence should start with I think, without so, and that part (A) as given in the question is incorrect usage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (B), you have taken, is correct present perfect construction and fits well with the idea of a decision already made. There is no need to change the tense or the auxiliary. Part (C), the right decision, is a standard noun phrase, and both the article and adjective are used correctly. Part (D), No Error, cannot be the correct choice because we have clearly identified a usage issue in part (A). Therefore, only option A correctly marks the segment that needs to be improved to achieve natural English expression. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to overlook small function words like so and focus only on verbs or nouns. Some learners wrongly try to change the tense in have taken or alter the phrase the right decision, even though both are correct. It is important in error spotting to consider not just grammar rules but also idiomatic patterns of everyday English. When you see I think followed by a complete clause, remember that so is not used in such structures and is reserved for short answers to yes or no questions. Training your ear for natural combinations of common phrases can greatly improve performance in these items. Final Answer: The incorrect part is (A), so the correct answer is A.

Question 11

In the following error spotting sentence, read the labelled parts and decide which one (A), (B), (C) or (D) contains the grammatical or usage error: When Albert stayed at the African jungle (A) / he chose to put up with many inconveniences such as (…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of correct preposition choice with place nouns and natural settings. The sentence is divided into labelled parts (A), (B), (C), and (D), and you must identify which part is grammatically incorrect. The sentence describes Albert staying in a jungle in Africa and tolerating inconveniences such as wild animals and poisonous insects. The main issue is the preposition used with the phrase African jungle, which is a typical preposition error tested in competitive English exams. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): When Albert stayed at the African jungle Part (B): he chose to put up with many inconveniences such as Part (C): wild animals and poisionous insects. Part (D): No Error. The intended meaning is that Albert stayed in a jungle located in Africa and accepted many inconveniences. Concept / Approach: The main concept here is the use of prepositions with large areas and natural regions. We normally say in the jungle, in the forest, or in the desert, not at the jungle. The preposition at is more appropriate for specific points or locations like at the station, at the gate, or at the bus stop. Therefore, the phrase stayed at the African jungle is incorrect. It should be stayed in the African jungle. The rest of the sentence is structurally sound: put up with many inconveniences is a standard phrasal verb construction, and wild animals and poisonous insects form a natural list of examples. The spelling poisionous is a typo for poisonous, but the exam usually focuses on one main grammar error, which is the wrong preposition in part (A). Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (A) and focus on the phrase stayed at the African jungle. Step 2: Recall that we use in with large areas like cities, countries, and regions, and with natural environments like jungles, forests, and mountains. Step 3: Recognise that the correct phrase must be stayed in the African jungle, not stayed at the African jungle. Step 4: Check that parts (B) and (C) are grammatically acceptable as a description of inconveniences, and confirm that the main tested error is in part (A). Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the sentence with the correct preposition: When Albert stayed in the African jungle, he chose to put up with many inconveniences such as wild animals and poisonous insects. This sentence now sounds natural and follows standard preposition usage. If we keep the original at, the phrase feels awkward and unidiomatic. Native speakers clearly prefer in the jungle in such contexts. While we could also correct the spelling of poisonous, error spotting questions typically focus on the most obvious grammar or usage error that affects structure rather than a minor spelling slip. This supports identifying part (A) as the answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (B) uses the phrasal verb put up with, which correctly means tolerate or accept, and is followed by the noun phrase many inconveniences such as, so there is no error here. Part (C) lists wild animals and poisonous insects as examples, which is perfectly logical in the context of a jungle, and the structure of the phrase is correct even though the spelling of poisonous could be refined. Part (D), No Error, is not correct because we have found a clear and rule based preposition error in part (A). Therefore, option A is the only one that correctly marks the problematic portion of the sentence. Common Pitfalls: A common trap is to be distracted by the unusual spelling poisionous and assume that the question is purely about spelling. While spelling is important, exam setters often target core grammar patterns such as preposition use. Another pitfall is to hesitate between at and in without recalling the general rule that in applies to larger areas and natural settings. To avoid such mistakes, learners should memorise examples like in the jungle, in the forest, in the mountains, and in the desert, and reserve at for defined points or events. This pattern becomes easier to recognise once you see it in multiple sentences. Final Answer: The usage error is in part (A), so the correct answer is A.

Question 12

In the following English grammar question, read the labelled sentence I recall you telling me (A) / the story of the seven witches (B) / but I cannot remember where or when. (C) / No Error (D) and identify which part contains an error, or mark No Er…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to recognise when a sentence is already correct and does not need any grammatical change. Many error spotting items include some sentences that are error free to make sure candidates do not mechanically search for mistakes where none exist. The sentence here expresses a memory: the speaker remembers being told a story about the seven witches but cannot recall the exact place or time. Your job is to decide whether any part (A), (B), or (C) is incorrect in terms of grammar or usage, or whether the sentence is fully correct, in which case you must select No Error (D). Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): I recall you telling me Part (B): the story of the seven witches Part (C): but I cannot remember where or when. Part (D): No Error. The intended meaning is that the speaker remembers the telling of the story, but not the details of place or time. Concept / Approach: The construction I recall you telling me is grammatically valid in English; recall can take a noun phrase or a gerund phrase as its object, and you telling me functions as a gerund phrase describing an action that happened in the past. The noun phrase the story of the seven witches is also correct and clearly identifies what was told. The conjunction but correctly joins two related clauses: I recall you telling me the story and I cannot remember where or when. The negative form cannot remember is standard, and the pair where or when succinctly covers both location and time without needing extra words. Therefore, there is no grammatical or idiomatic error in any of the labelled parts, and the correct response is that the sentence is error free. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (A) and note the structure I recall you telling me. This is an acceptable pattern in English where recall is followed by a noun or gerund phrase. Step 2: Check part (B), the story of the seven witches, and confirm that the article, noun, and prepositional phrase are used properly. Step 3: Look at part (C), but I cannot remember where or when, and see that it is a correctly formed clause expressing a contrast in memory. Step 4: Since no part contains a grammatical or usage mistake, choose No Error (D) as the correct option. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can attempt to rewrite the sentence in different ways and see whether any change is actually necessary. For example, you could say I remember you telling me the story of the seven witches, but I cannot remember where or when. This alternative uses remember instead of recall, but both verbs are correct. You may also transform you telling me into your telling me without changing the sense. None of these alternatives are improvements forced by an error; they are merely stylistic variations. Because the original structure is already grammatically sound and idiomatic, marking any specific part as wrong would be unjustified. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is not wrong, as recall you telling me is accepted English. Option B is not wrong; the phrase the story of the seven witches correctly uses a definite article and a prepositional phrase indicating what the story is about. Option C is also correct; the conjunction but, the auxiliary cannot, and the pair where or when are all properly used. Therefore, choosing A, B, or C as containing the error would be incorrect. The only accurate choice is option D, which acknowledges that no error exists in the sentence. Common Pitfalls: Many students fall into the trap of believing that every error spotting question must contain a mistake, which leads them to manufacture errors by over analysing correct structures. Some may incorrectly assume that recall must always be followed by a that clause or a simple noun, and therefore doubt you telling me. Others may fixate on the phrase where or when, trying to add extra words like it happened, even though the original wording is concise and natural. To avoid such pitfalls, remember that No Error is sometimes the right answer and trust your knowledge when a sentence reads smoothly and follows the rules you have learned. Final Answer: The sentence is grammatically correct as written, so the correct choice is D (No Error).

Question 13

In the following error spotting sentence, read the labelled parts and decide which one (A), (B), (C) or (D) contains an error: I was surprised (A) / when the hostess smiled (B) / as if she saw me before. (C) / No error (D).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of tense usage in conditional or comparative clauses introduced by as if. The sentence describes a past situation in which the hostess smiled in a way that suggested she already knew the speaker. To express this idea correctly, English normally requires a past perfect tense in the as if clause. You must examine the labelled parts and identify which part contains the tense error that disrupts the correct expression of prior action relative to another action in the past. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): I was surprised Part (B): when the hostess smiled Part (C): as if she saw me before. Part (D): No error. The intended meaning is that the hostess behaved as though she had seen the speaker at some earlier time. Concept / Approach: When English speakers describe an unreal or hypothetical situation in the past, especially after expressions like as if or as though, they often use the past perfect tense to show a prior and somewhat unreal action. In this sentence, the main actions were I was surprised and the hostess smiled, both in the simple past. The clause as if she saw me before attempts to suggest an earlier experience that is only implied. The correct tense to convey that sense is had seen rather than saw. Therefore, the phrase should be as if she had seen me before. Parts (A) and (B) use standard simple past forms and are acceptable, but part (C) uses the wrong tense for this structure, making it the segment with the error. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Analyse the main clause in parts (A) and (B): I was surprised when the hostess smiled. This correctly uses simple past to describe events that happened. Step 2: Look at the subordinate clause in part (C): as if she saw me before. Step 3: Recall the rule that when as if describes a hypothetical or earlier experience in relation to a past event, we generally prefer the past perfect had seen. Step 4: Conclude that part (C) should be changed to as if she had seen me before, and therefore part (C) is where the error lies. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the full sentence in corrected form: I was surprised when the hostess smiled as if she had seen me before. This version clearly expresses that the hostess smile gave the impression of prior acquaintance. If we keep as if she saw me before, the sequence of tenses is less precise and does not fully capture the idea that the seeing, if it happened, would have been earlier than the moment of smiling. Additionally, grammar rule books often illustrate as if clauses with past perfect when implying a counterfactual or earlier condition. This supports our choice of part (C) as the incorrect segment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (A), I was surprised, is perfectly correct as a past tense statement of reaction. Part (B), when the hostess smiled, properly uses simple past to describe a completed event that triggered the surprise. There is no grammatical issue in these parts. Part (D), No error, is incorrect as an answer because we have clearly identified that part (C) uses saw where had seen is more appropriate. Thus, the only correct choice for the location of the error is option C. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overlook subtle tense shifts inside subordinate clauses, especially when the main clause seems straightforward. Another common mistake is to treat saw as an acceptable general past tense in all contexts, without considering whether the clause expresses an earlier or hypothetical action. Exam setters often use as if to test knowledge of this specific tense pattern. To avoid such errors, pay special attention whenever you see as if or as though, and check whether the situation described is unreal or prior to another past event. In such cases, the past perfect is usually the safer and more accurate choice. Final Answer: The error is in part (C), so the correct answer is C.

Question 14

In the following English grammar error spotting question, read the labelled sentence Each one of his sisters (A) / were (B) / hardworking. (C) / No Error (D) and choose which part contains the error in subject–verb agreement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question targets subject–verb agreement when quantifiers like each one are used before plural nouns. The sentence describes a group of sisters and states that all of them are hardworking, but the grammatical structure focuses on each individual member. Many learners misread such sentences and choose a plural verb because they see a plural noun nearby, which is why exam setters frequently include items of this type. You must identify which part among (A), (B), (C), and (D) violates the agreement rule between the subject and the verb. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (A): Each one of his sisters Part (B): were Part (C): hardworking. Part (D): No Error. The intended meaning is that every individual sister was hardworking. Concept / Approach: The key concept is that when a sentence begins with each, each of, every, or every one, the grammatical subject is treated as singular, even if followed by a plural noun. In this sentence, the subject is Each one, not sisters. Therefore, the verb should be singular was rather than plural were. The phrase of his sisters is a prepositional phrase that modifies one and does not change the singular nature of the subject. The predicate adjective hardworking correctly describes the subject and does not need any change. Consequently, the only error lies in the verb form in part (B), which must be changed from were to was to match the singular subject Each one. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the grammatical subject in part (A). The core subject is Each one, which is singular. Step 2: Notice that of his sisters is a prepositional phrase providing additional information, but it does not alter the subject number. Step 3: Check the verb in part (B), which is were, a plural form of the verb to be in the past tense. Step 4: Apply the agreement rule: a singular subject requires a singular verb, so were must be replaced with was, indicating that part (B) is the error segment. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the sentence correctly: Each one of his sisters was hardworking. This sentence now respects the singular subject and uses the appropriate past tense verb form was. If you contrast this with a clearly plural subject, such as All of his sisters were hardworking, you can see that the choice of verb depends on the quantifier at the beginning. All takes a plural verb, but each one takes a singular verb. This contrast confirms that the original sentence should not use were after Each one and that part (B) must be corrected. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (A) is correct as a subject phrase; Each one of his sisters is a standard way to refer to every individual member of the group. Part (C), hardworking, is a simple predicate adjective that accurately describes the subject and does not require an article in this context. Part (D), No Error, cannot be chosen because we have identified a clear subject–verb disagreement in part (B). Therefore, option B is the only correct choice that marks the location of the grammatical error. Common Pitfalls: The most common pitfall is to be influenced by the nearest plural noun, here sisters, and to choose a plural verb automatically. This is known as proximity agreement, and it often misleads learners. To avoid it, always locate the true subject of the sentence, especially when quantifiers and prepositional phrases are present, and then match the verb to that subject rather than to a nearby noun. Memorising patterns like each of the students is and every one of the books was can help you internalise this rule and apply it quickly in exam situations. Final Answer: The verb in part (B) is incorrect, so the correct answer is B.

Question 15

In this English error spotting question, identify which part of the sentence contains the grammatical error in: "His need for affection (A) stem from his (B) father's long absence. (C) No Error (D)".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This English grammar question belongs to the error spotting category, where the sentence is split into four labelled parts (A), (B), (C), and (D - No Error). You are asked to identify which segment contains a grammatical mistake. The sentence given is: "His need for affection (A) stem from his (B) father's long absence. (C) No Error (D)". The main concept tested here is subject verb agreement in the simple present tense. Given Data / Assumptions: The full sentence is "His need for affection stem from his father's long absence." Part (A): "His need for affection". Part (B): "stem from his". Part (C): "father's long absence." Part (D): "No Error", which is correct only if no other part contains an error. The subject of the main clause is "need", which is singular. Concept / Approach: In the simple present tense, a singular subject (he, she, it, or a singular noun) takes a verb with an added s or es: "needs", "goes", "comes", "stems". A plural subject takes the base form of the verb, such as "need", "go", "come", "stem". In this sentence, "His need for affection" is a singular noun phrase because the head noun "need" is singular. Therefore, the verb must also be singular and should be "stems" instead of "stem". The rest of the sentence, "from his father's long absence", is grammatically sound and expresses the cause correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main subject: "His need for affection". The core subject is "need", which is singular.Step 2: Identify the verb associated with this subject: "stem".Step 3: Apply the rule of subject verb agreement in the simple present tense: singular subject → verb + s; plural subject → base verb.Step 4: Since "need" is singular, the correct verb should be "stems", giving "His need for affection stems from his father's long absence."Step 5: Conclude that the incorrect portion is part (B), where "stem" is used without the necessary s ending. Verification / Alternative check: We can quickly test the corrected sentence: "His need for affection stems from his father's long absence." This is natural and fully grammatical. Parts (A) and (C) do not require any change. "His need for affection" clearly introduces a singular emotional need, and "father's long absence" correctly shows possession. Therefore, there is no reason to mark them as wrong. Since an error is present in part (B), we cannot choose (D) "No Error". Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (part A) is correct; it accurately presents the singular subject "need" with modifiers. Option C (part C) is also correct; it shows the possessive "father's" and the phrase "long absence". Option D (part D - No Error) is incorrect because we have already identified an error in part (B); therefore, the sentence is not error free. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes get distracted by nearby nouns like "father's" and think they are the subject. However, the true subject is "need", not "father". Another common mistake is to treat long noun phrases with several words as plural simply because they look complex. Always locate the head noun and then match the verb to that head noun. In this item, remembering that "need" is singular leads you straight to the correct form "stems". Final Answer: The error is in part B, where "stem" should be "stems" to agree with the singular subject "need".

Question 16

In this English error spotting question, identify which part of the sentence contains the error in: "Due to his negligence, (A) he failed (B) in the examination. (C) No Error (D)".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of standard prepositional usage and formal grammar in English, especially the phrase "due to". The sentence is divided into segments: "Due to his negligence, (A) he failed (B) in the examination. (C) No Error (D)". Traditional exam grammar expects you to differentiate between correct use of "due to" and "because of" at the beginning of a sentence. Given Data / Assumptions: Full sentence as given: "Due to his negligence, he failed in the examination." Part (A): "Due to his negligence," Part (B): "he failed" Part (C): "in the examination." Part (D): "No Error" We are working with the traditional exam rule that "due to" should modify a noun, while "because of" is used to modify a verb or clause. Concept / Approach: In strict formal grammar, "due to" functions like an adjective and is used after forms of the verb "to be" to modify a noun, for example, "His failure was due to negligence." On the other hand, "because of" functions as an adverbial phrase and can modify a verb or an entire clause, as in "He failed because of his negligence." In competitive exams, starting a sentence with "Due to his negligence, he failed..." is usually treated as incorrect for this reason. The preferred formal version is "Because of his negligence, he failed in the examination." Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the full sentence and locate the cause effect structure: negligence (cause) leading to failure (effect).Step 2: Recognise that the phrase "Due to his negligence" is being used at the start to modify the verb "failed".Step 3: Apply the exam rule: "due to" should normally follow a form of "be" and modify a noun, whereas "because of" is more suitable before a clause.Step 4: Rewrite the sentence in the more acceptable standard form: "Because of his negligence, he failed in the examination."Step 5: Conclude that the error lies in part (A), which needs to be corrected from "Due to" to "Because of". Verification / Alternative check: If we rewrite the sentence as "His failure in the examination was due to his negligence", "due to" now correctly follows "was" and modifies the noun "failure". In that version, the usage is completely acceptable. However, the structure in the exam sentence is different and does not follow this pattern. Parts (B) and (C) are straightforward: "he failed in the examination" is grammatically correct and idiomatic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (part B "he failed") correctly uses the past simple tense to describe the result. Option C (part C "in the examination") correctly employs the preposition "in" to refer to performance in an exam. Option D (No Error) is wrong because there is indeed a correctness issue in part (A) according to formal exam standards. Common Pitfalls: In modern informal English, many speakers use "due to" and "because of" interchangeably, and the sentence may sound acceptable in casual conversation. However, competitive examinations generally follow stricter, traditional rules to test precision. Candidates who rely only on what "sounds right" may be misled and miss the subtle distinction. Therefore, it is important to remember the exam friendly guideline: use "because of" to modify a verb or whole clause, and "due to" after a linking verb to modify a noun. Final Answer: The grammatical error is in part A, where "Due to his negligence" should be replaced with "Because of his negligence" in formal exam English.

Question 17

In this English error spotting question, identify the part that contains the error in: "Ramesh is smarter enough (A) to get selected for this post, (B) without any recommendations. (C) No Error (D)".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error spotting question examines your understanding of degree expressions in English, specifically structures involving adjectives and the word "enough". The sentence given is: "Ramesh is smarter enough (A) to get selected for this post, (B) without any recommendations. (C) No Error (D)". You must decide which part contains the grammatical or idiomatic error under standard exam rules. Given Data / Assumptions: Full sentence: "Ramesh is smarter enough to get selected for this post, without any recommendations." Part (A): "Ramesh is smarter enough" Part (B): "to get selected for this post," Part (C): "without any recommendations." Part (D): "No Error" We assume that the intended meaning is that Ramesh has sufficient intelligence to be selected without needing recommendations. Concept / Approach: In English grammar, "enough" is used after adjectives to indicate sufficiency, as in "smart enough", "strong enough", "old enough". We do not usually combine "enough" with comparative adjectives like "smarter". The correct pattern is either "Ramesh is smart enough to get selected" or "Ramesh is smarter than many others". Therefore the phrase "smarter enough" is incorrect. The error is in the choice and form of the adjective in part (A). The rest of the sentence, including "to get selected for this post, without any recommendations", is grammatically sound and expresses the intended idea. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the phrase "smarter enough" in part (A).Step 2: Recall the rule that "enough" is used with the basic form of the adjective, not with its comparative form.Step 3: Replace "smarter enough" with "smart enough" to match the standard pattern "adjective + enough".Step 4: Check the remaining parts: "to get selected for this post" correctly expresses purpose, and "without any recommendations" correctly expresses the absence of support.Step 5: Conclude that only part (A) is erroneous; parts (B) and (C) do not need change. Verification / Alternative check: Rewriting the sentence as "Ramesh is smart enough to get selected for this post, without any recommendations" produces a natural and grammatically correct sentence. The use of "enough" here expresses sufficiency of ability. If we want to use "smarter", we would need a different structure: "Ramesh is smarter than many other candidates and can get selected for this post without any recommendations." Since that structure is not used in the given sentence, we must stick to "smart enough". Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B (part B "to get selected for this post,") is correctly formed and clearly linked to the adjective phrase, expressing purpose. Option C (part C "without any recommendations.") is also grammatically correct and properly placed as an adverbial phrase of manner or condition. Option D (No Error) is incorrect because the phrase "smarter enough" is not standard English in this context. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse "enough" and comparative forms because both relate to degree. Remember that comparatives like "smarter", "stronger", and "older" are typically used with "than" to show comparison between two entities. In contrast, "enough" shows sufficiency and is paired with the basic adjective form. Keeping this distinction clear will help you avoid similar mistakes in both writing and exams. Final Answer: The error appears in part A, where "smarter enough" should be corrected to "smart enough".

Question 18

In this English error spotting question, identify the erroneous part in: "Madhu lived in Mumbai (A) since 1970 to 1985, (B) but is now living in Chennai. (C) No Error (D)".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of prepositions used with time expressions, especially "since", "from", and "to". The test sentence is: "Madhu lived in Mumbai (A) since 1970 to 1985, (B) but is now living in Chennai. (C) No Error (D)". We must locate the part that contains the incorrect time expression and suggest the correct form according to standard English usage. Given Data / Assumptions: Full sentence: "Madhu lived in Mumbai since 1970 to 1985, but is now living in Chennai." Part (A): "Madhu lived in Mumbai" Part (B): "since 1970 to 1985," Part (C): "but is now living in Chennai." Part (D): "No Error" The intended meaning is that Madhu lived in Mumbai during the period from 1970 until 1985, and now she lives in Chennai. Concept / Approach: The preposition "since" is used with the starting point of a period and is normally followed by a single time point, such as "since 1970", often with a perfect tense: "has lived in Mumbai since 1970". When we want to indicate the entire duration from one year to another, we usually use the pair "from ... to ..." or "from ... till ...". Therefore, "since 1970 to 1985" is an incorrect combination. The correct expression would be "from 1970 to 1985". Alternatively, we could say "since 1970" if we used a present perfect tense and did not specify the end year, but that is not the case here. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the time phrase "since 1970 to 1985" in part (B).Step 2: Recall that "since" is followed by a single starting point and works best with perfect tenses.Step 3: Notice that the sentence also mentions the end year 1985, which suggests a closed period.Step 4: Replace "since" with "from" to obtain the correct expression: "from 1970 to 1985".Step 5: Check the whole sentence now: "Madhu lived in Mumbai from 1970 to 1985, but is now living in Chennai." This is grammatically correct and semantically clear. Verification / Alternative check: If we tried to keep "since", we would need a different tense and structure, such as "Madhu has lived in Mumbai since 1970", which suggests she still lives there and does not match the second clause "but is now living in Chennai." Therefore, using "since" in the original sentence conflicts with both the time period and the later information about her current residence. Parts (A) and (C) are otherwise correct: "Madhu lived in Mumbai" properly uses the simple past for a finished period, and "but is now living in Chennai" correctly uses the present continuous to describe a current temporary or recent situation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (part A) is correct; it properly introduces the subject and past action. Option C (part C) is also correct; it clearly indicates the contrast between past residence and present residence. Option D (No Error) cannot be chosen because we have identified a clear error in part (B). Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes mix up "since" and "from" because both can appear before time expressions. Remember that "since" is tied to a starting point and usually goes with perfect tenses to indicate continuity up to the present, whereas "from ... to ..." is used to mark a complete span between two specific times, usually with simple past when the period is over. Keeping this distinction in mind prevents confusion in error spotting and tense questions. Final Answer: The error is in part B, where "since 1970 to 1985" should be corrected to "from 1970 to 1985".

Question 19

In this English error spotting question, identify the part that contains the error in: "It has been shown that (A) very high doses of vitamin C actually (B) causes cancer cells to grow. (C) No Error (D).".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error spotting question focuses on subject verb agreement in a scientific style sentence. The sentence given is: "It has been shown that (A) very high doses of vitamin C actually (B) causes cancer cells to grow. (C) No Error (D)." You must decide which segment contains the disagreement between the subject and the verb. Given Data / Assumptions: Full sentence: "It has been shown that very high doses of vitamin C actually causes cancer cells to grow." Part (A): "It has been shown that" Part (B): "very high doses of vitamin C actually" Part (C): "causes cancer cells to grow." Part (D): "No Error" The true grammatical subject of the verb in part (C) is "very high doses of vitamin C", which is plural because of "doses". Concept / Approach: Subject verb agreement requires that a plural subject take a plural verb, and a singular subject take a singular verb. Here, the clause after "that" is "very high doses of vitamin C actually cause cancer cells to grow." The head noun "doses" is plural. Therefore, the verb should be "cause", not "causes". The introductory "It has been shown that" is a dummy subject construction and does not affect the internal agreement in the subordinate clause. Hence the error lies where the singular verb form "causes" is used instead of the plural form "cause". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the clause after "that": "very high doses of vitamin C actually causes cancer cells to grow."Step 2: Determine the true subject of this clause: "very high doses of vitamin C".Step 3: Recognise that "doses" is plural, and the phrase "very high doses of vitamin C" should be treated as a plural noun phrase.Step 4: Apply the rule: plural subject → base form verb without s; singular subject → verb with s in the simple present.Step 5: Replace "causes" with "cause" so that the corrected sentence reads: "It has been shown that very high doses of vitamin C actually cause cancer cells to grow." Verification / Alternative check: The introductory clause "It has been shown that" is in present perfect passive and is correct. The adverb "actually" is correctly placed to emphasise the unexpected nature of the result. The object "cancer cells" and the infinitive phrase "to grow" are also correct. Only the verb "causes" is mismatched. Once you change it to "cause", the subordinate clause becomes grammatically complete. Therefore, the error must be located in part (C), where the verb appears. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (part A "It has been shown that") is a correct reporting structure for research findings and requires no change. Option B (part B "very high doses of vitamin C actually") correctly introduces the subject and an adverb, with proper placement and word choice. Option D (No Error) is incorrect because the subject verb agreement is clearly violated in part (C). Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes get distracted by the proximity of the singular noun "vitamin C" and wrongly match the verb with that instead of the true head noun "doses". In noun phrases with "of", always identify the head word before "of" to determine number: "dose of vitamin C" (singular) versus "doses of vitamin C" (plural). Matching the verb with the wrong noun in such phrases is a very common exam trap. Final Answer: The error is in part C, where "causes" should be corrected to "cause" to agree with the plural subject "very high doses of vitamin C".

Question 20

In this English error spotting question, determine whether any part of the sentence contains an error in: "Excess energy intake from (A) food may fuel the (B) growth of several cancers. (C) No error (D)".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error spotting question checks whether you can recognize a sentence that is already grammatically correct. The sentence presented is: "Excess energy intake from (A) food may fuel the (B) growth of several cancers. (C) No error (D)". You must decide whether any of the segments (A), (B), or (C) contain a grammatical or usage problem, or whether the correct choice is (D) "No error". Given Data / Assumptions: Full sentence: "Excess energy intake from food may fuel the growth of several cancers." Part (A): "Excess energy intake from" Part (B): "food may fuel the" Part (C): "growth of several cancers." Part (D): "No error" The sentence appears to be scientific or health related, explaining the effect of energy intake on cancer development. Concept / Approach: To solve such questions, read the entire sentence for meaning, grammar, and collocation. Check subject verb agreement, prepositions, article usage, and word order. "Excess energy intake from food" functions as a clear noun phrase resulting in a potential effect: "may fuel the growth of several cancers." The modal "may" correctly indicates possibility. The expression "fuel the growth" is a common and acceptable metaphor in scientific writing. The plural "cancers" is used because different types of cancer may be affected. There is no mismatch or incorrect word choice here, so the sentence is acceptable as it stands. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (A): "Excess energy intake from". "Excess energy intake" is a correct compound noun phrase, and "from" is the correct preposition before "food".Step 2: Examine part (B): "food may fuel the". The word order "food may fuel" follows standard subject modal verb verb pattern, and "the" correctly introduces the noun phrase "growth".Step 3: Examine part (C): "growth of several cancers." This phrase correctly uses "of" to indicate what is growing and properly uses "several" to modify "cancers".Step 4: Check overall meaning: the sentence clearly states that too much energy intake can contribute to the development of different cancers, which is logically and grammatically coherent.Step 5: Since none of parts (A), (B), or (C) show errors, choose part (D) "No error". Verification / Alternative check: We can attempt alternative phrasing to see if anything feels clearly superior or if the current sentence is already standard. For example, "Excess energy intake from food may fuel the growth of various cancers" is a minor stylistic variation but not required. In exams, small stylistic tweaks do not count as errors; only clear grammatical or collocational mistakes do. There is no verb form issue, no tense confusion, and no incorrect preposition, confirming that the original version is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (part A) is grammatically correct and forms a complete subject phrase when combined with part (B). Option B (part B) is structurally sound and uses the modal "may" appropriately for possibility. Option C (part C) properly expresses the object of the verb "fuel" and is idiomatic. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates overthink sentences that look technical or scientific and imagine errors where none exist. It is important not to make unnecessary corrections just because a sentence uses specific domain vocabulary. In error spotting questions, if a sentence reads grammatically and meaningfully correct, you should be comfortable choosing "No error". Practice distinguishing genuine grammatical mistakes from mere stylistic alternatives. Final Answer: The sentence is grammatically correct, so the appropriate choice is D (No error).

English Questions