Question 1

In the following English idiom question, the phrase "Mealy mouthed" is given. From the four alternatives listed, choose the option that most accurately expresses the meaning of this idiomatic description of a person's speech or behaviour.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The idiom "mealy mouthed" is used in English to criticise someone who avoids speaking plainly, especially when truth or honesty is required. Questions on idioms like this test whether candidates understand subtle descriptions of personality and behaviour. Instead of praising direct speech, this expression highlights evasiveness or lack of courage in saying what one really thinks, which is a useful nuance in formal as well as informal communication. Given Data / Assumptions: - The idiom presented is "Mealy mouthed". - The options are: foolishly ideal, speaking harshly, unwilling to state something, and to speak something straightforwardly. - Only one option correctly captures the negative, evasive quality described by the idiom. - We assume general conversational and critical contexts where people comment on how frankly someone speaks. Concept / Approach: "Mealy mouthed" is a strongly negative description. It suggests that a person is not willing to speak clearly or honestly, perhaps because they are afraid of offending others or revealing their true views. The opposite would be blunt, direct, or straightforward speech. Therefore, we must choose an option that reflects reluctance to state something plainly, not courage, harshness, or idealism. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall example sentences such as "The spokesperson gave a mealy mouthed response to the difficult question" or "We do not want mealy mouthed apologies". Step 2: Interpret these examples. In both cases, the criticism is that the person avoided clear, direct words and tried to be vague or evasive. Step 3: Examine option C, "Unwilling to state something". This clearly reflects hesitation or reluctance to say what should be said, which matches the idiom. Step 4: Evaluate option A, "Foolishly ideal". This describes unrealistic idealism, which is not related to speech clarity or vagueness. Step 5: Evaluate option B, "Speaking harshly". This implies being very direct and possibly rude, which is actually close to the opposite of mealy mouthed behaviour. Step 6: Evaluate option D, "To speak something straightforwardly". This represents plain and direct speech, the very quality that a mealy mouthed person lacks. Step 7: Therefore, the only appropriate choice is option C. Verification / Alternative check: Standard dictionaries define "mealy mouthed" as "not willing to speak plainly and honestly about something, especially when criticism is needed". If we substitute "unwilling to state something" into the earlier example, we get "The spokesperson was unwilling to state something directly", which is similar in sense to giving a mealy mouthed answer. None of the other options preserve this meaning when substituted into real sentences. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - "Foolishly ideal" talks about unrealistic hopes or expectations, not about patterns of speech. - "Speaking harshly" suggests strong and perhaps rude directness, which is the opposite of the softness or vagueness associated with being mealy mouthed. - "To speak something straightforwardly" describes exactly what a mealy mouthed person does not do, so it cannot be the correct meaning. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may misinterpret the phrase by focusing literally on the words "mealy" and "mouthed" and imagine it might refer to speaking with food in one's mouth or to speaking harshly. However, idiomatic meaning is fixed and does not always follow logical breakdown of the words. Another pitfall is to associate any colourful phrase with strong speech, whereas here the image emphasises weak, soft, and cautious speech. To avoid these mistakes, students should rely on remembered examples and trustworthy sources rather than guessing based purely on the surface image. Final Answer: The idiom "Mealy mouthed" means unwilling to state something, that is, avoiding clear and direct speech.

Question 2

In the following English idiom question, the phrase "No love lost" is given. Out of the four alternatives, select the option that best conveys the true meaning of this expression as it is used to describe relationships between people.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The idiom "no love lost" is commonly used in English to describe a relationship in which two people strongly dislike each other. Idiomatic questions like this test awareness of how English expresses social attitudes and emotions by using fixed phrases. At first glance, the words "no love" might be misunderstood as neutral or indifferent feelings, but the established idiomatic meaning is much stronger and more negative. Given Data / Assumptions: - The idiom given is "No love lost". - The alternatives provided are: complimentary, a seer's last creation, self satisfied, and intense dislike. - Only one option correctly matches the idiomatic sense of the phrase. - We assume contexts where people talk about personal conflicts, rivalries, or hostility. Concept / Approach: In idiomatic usage, when we say "There is no love lost between A and B", we mean that both parties actively dislike each other. The phrase does not describe mild disagreement or polite distance; it suggests strong mutual hostility. Therefore, our goal is to choose the option that expresses intense dislike, not compliments, spirituality, or self satisfaction. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall examples such as "There is no love lost between the two neighbours" or "No love was lost between the rival teams". Step 2: Interpret these sentences. They clearly indicate that both sides have negative feelings and often fight or quarrel. Step 3: Examine option D, "Intense dislike". This matches the idea of strong mutual hostility and fits the idiom perfectly. Step 4: Evaluate option A, "Complimentary". This word refers to giving praise or expressing admiration, which is almost the opposite of the idiom's meaning. Step 5: Evaluate option B, "A seer's last creation". This is unclear, unrelated to relationships, and has no connection with the phrase in common English usage. Step 6: Evaluate option C, "Self satisfied". This describes a person's attitude toward themselves, not mutual feelings between two people. Step 7: Consequently, option D is the only accurate representation of the idiom. Verification / Alternative check: Dictionaries typically define "there is no love lost between them" as "they dislike each other very much". To verify, we can substitute "intense dislike" into example sentences. For instance, "There is intense dislike between the two neighbours" preserves the meaning of constant hostility. On the other hand, replacing it with "complimentary", "self satisfied", or any spiritual phrase would break the sense of the sentence entirely. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - "Complimentary" suggests positive appreciation, which is completely opposite to hate or hostility. - "A seer's last creation" is a confusing and irrelevant phrase that is not associated with this idiom at all. - "Self satisfied" refers to a person being pleased with themselves and does not describe a relationship between two different people. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may misread the phrase and assume that "no love" means neutrality or lack of affection without hostility. However, idiomatic English often uses such phrases to intensify meaning. Another mistake is to focus on a single word like "love" and associate the idiom automatically with positive feelings. To avoid such errors, students should learn idioms in full sentence contexts and notice which emotional tone they convey, especially when describing relationships and conflicts. Final Answer: The idiom "No love lost" signifies intense dislike between two people or groups.

Question 3

In the following English idiom question, the phrase "Out of sorts" is used. From the four given alternatives, choose the option that best expresses the idiomatic meaning of this phrase as it is commonly used in everyday English.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The idiom "out of sorts" is a common expression in English that describes someone who is not feeling well, either physically or emotionally. It is frequently used in casual speech and literature, and exam questions often test whether candidates can recognise this mild but important description of health or mood. Understanding such idioms helps learners interpret conversations and texts more accurately. Given Data / Assumptions: - The idiom given is "Out of sorts". - The options are: to be equal to, to be unwell, to make peace, and to ignore. - Only one option correctly represents the meaning of the expression in standard English. - We assume contexts where someone is being asked about their health or state of mind. Concept / Approach: "Out of sorts" usually implies that a person is feeling slightly ill, tired, irritable, or not their usual cheerful self. It does not normally mean serious illness, but rather a general sense of not being in good form. Therefore, our task is to choose an option that recognises this sense of mild unwellness, instead of unrelated notions such as equality, peace making, or ignoring someone. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall common usage examples like "She has been out of sorts all day" or "He seems a bit out of sorts after the long journey". Step 2: Interpret these sentences. In both cases, the speakers mean that the person is not feeling well or is somewhat upset or off balance. Step 3: Examine option B, "To be unwell". This directly corresponds to the idea of not feeling fine, physically or emotionally. Step 4: Evaluate option A, "To be equal to". This has no relation to mood or health; it is about equivalence and is clearly unrelated. Step 5: Evaluate option C, "To make peace". This describes resolving conflict, which does not fit the context of personal physical or emotional condition. Step 6: Evaluate option D, "To ignore". This is about paying no attention to someone or something and again has nothing to do with feeling unwell. Step 7: Hence, option B must be the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Standard dictionary entries for "out of sorts" define it as "slightly unwell or upset". If we replace "out of sorts" with "unwell" in example sentences, the sense remains intact: "She has been unwell all day" also explains why her mood or behaviour is different. None of the other options can substitute into those sentences without making them strange or meaningless. This confirms that the idiom refers to a minor health or mood problem rather than any other concept. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - "To be equal to" deals with equivalence in value or capability and does not describe a person's condition or feelings. - "To make peace" is about ending a disagreement or conflict, not about how someone feels physically or mentally. - "To ignore" is an action that someone chooses to take toward others or situations, not a description of their health or mood. Common Pitfalls: Because the words "out of" can appear in many phrases, some learners may confuse "out of sorts" with expressions like "out of order" or "out of stock". Another mistake is to interpret "sorts" in a literal way and think about types rather than emotional state. The safest method is to remember this idiom as a fixed, ready made phrase used when someone is not quite themselves, possibly a little sick, tired, or bad tempered. Final Answer: The idiom "Out of sorts" means to be unwell or not in one's usual good health or mood.

Question 4

In the following English idiom question, the phrase "Pay lip service" is given. Out of the four options, choose the alternative that best expresses the true meaning of this expression in the context of attitudes and behaviour.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The idiom "pay lip service" is frequently used in English to criticise people or organisations that express support for an idea only in words, without taking real action. Exam questions about this idiom evaluate whether students can interpret attitudes such as hypocrisy, superficial agreement, or lack of genuine commitment. Understanding this phrase helps in reading opinion pieces, political commentary, and social discussions. Given Data / Assumptions: - The idiom in question is "Pay lip service". - The options are: candidly, pretend to regard, encouraging, and to defend. - Only one option correctly reflects the idiomatic sense of insincere verbal support. - We assume contexts such as public speeches, policies, or social issues where people may claim to support a cause. Concept / Approach: To "pay lip service" means to express approval or support only through words, without any real intention to act on those words. The term "lip" signals that the support is only at the level of the mouth, not from the heart or from genuine effort. Therefore, the correct answer must include the idea of pretending to value or support something without actually doing anything meaningful about it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall example sentences such as "The company pays lip service to environmental protection but continues to pollute" or "Many leaders pay lip service to equality without changing unfair laws". Step 2: Interpret these sentences. The criticism is that the people involved only make hollow statements and do not back them up with real actions. Step 3: Examine option B, "Pretend to regard". Although the wording is brief, it suggests pretending to care about or respect something, which fits the idea of insincere verbal support. Step 4: Evaluate option A, "Candidly". This means speaking honestly and openly, which is the opposite of pretending; it cannot represent lip service. Step 5: Evaluate option C, "Encouraging". This is a positive attitude, but it does not capture the idea of superficial or hypocritical support. Step 6: Evaluate option D, "To defend". This implies actively protecting or arguing for something, which indicates real commitment rather than empty words. Step 7: Therefore, only option B expresses the central idea of acting as if one regards something but only in appearance, not in sincere practice. Verification / Alternative check: Standard definitions describe "pay lip service to something" as "to say that you approve of or support something, but not to prove it by what you actually do". If we restate option B more fully as "pretend to regard or support", it aligns perfectly with this explanation. Substituting "pretend to regard" into examples like "They only pretend to regard environmental issues" preserves the criticism of insincerity. The other options, when substituted into those sentences, either change the meaning completely or make them illogical. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - "Candidly" suggests honest and straightforward speech, without hiding anything, which clashes directly with the idea of hypocritical pretence. - "Encouraging" indicates offering support in a positive way, but it does not necessarily imply that this support is only verbal and insincere. - "To defend" describes strong, active support, such as arguing in favour of a person or cause, and therefore is opposite to the weak, superficial support implied by lip service. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may misinterpret "lip service" as simply "speaking in favour of something", ignoring the negative implication of insincerity. Others may focus only on the word "service" and think about helpful actions, when in fact the idiom criticises lack of action. To avoid these mistakes, it is important to remember that the expression almost always appears in negative or critical contexts, often with verbs like "only", "merely", or "just", signalling that the support is not genuine. Final Answer: The idiom "Pay lip service" means pretend to regard, that is, to show insincere verbal support without real commitment.

Question 5

In the following English idiom question, the expression "Rip up old sores" is used. Out of the four alternatives given, select the one that best conveys the idiomatic meaning of this phrase in the context of human relationships and past conflicts.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The idiom "rip up old sores" is used in English to describe the act of bringing back painful memories or quarrels that had been forgotten or healed. It is a powerful metaphor drawn from the image of opening an old wound that had already started to heal. Questions about this idiom test whether candidates can recognise figurative language related to emotions and relationships, rather than interpreting the phrase literally. Given Data / Assumptions: - The idiom provided is "Rip up old sores". - The options are: to be defeated, to punish, to revive forgotten quarrel, and to deal with a person strictly. - Only one option captures the idea of reopening past hurts or disputes. - We assume contexts where people discuss sensitive issues, family arguments, or long standing grievances. Concept / Approach: Literally, a "sore" is a wound or injury, and to "rip it up" is to tear it open again, causing fresh pain. Idiomatically, "old sores" represent earlier conflicts or emotional hurts. When someone "rips up old sores", they bring up past grievances that everyone had tried to forget, thereby reviving the quarrel or hurt feelings. Therefore, the correct option must describe the act of reopening an old quarrel, not simply punishing, defeating, or enforcing discipline. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Think of example sentences like "By mentioning that incident, you are just ripping up old sores" or "He did not want to rip up old sores by talking about the dispute". Step 2: Interpret these examples. The speaker is warning against bringing back painful memories or arguments that had been set aside. Step 3: Examine option C, "To revive forgotten quarrel". This exactly matches the idea of reopening a dispute that had faded from active memory. Step 4: Evaluate option A, "To be defeated". This talks about losing and has no relation to reopening past quarrels. Step 5: Evaluate option B, "To punish". While punishment can cause pain, the idiom is not chiefly about punishment but about returning to old issues. Step 6: Evaluate option D, "To deal with a person strictly". This again refers to strict behaviour or discipline, which is not the central meaning of the idiom. Step 7: Therefore, option C is the only choice that properly expresses the idiomatic meaning. Verification / Alternative check: Reference definitions describe "rip up old sores" as "to return to discussions of past grievances or quarrels, causing renewed anger or pain". If we substitute "revive forgotten quarrel" into typical sentences, they remain meaningful: "By mentioning the incident, you are reviving a forgotten quarrel". None of the other options can be substituted without changing the sentence into something unnatural or unrelated. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - "To be defeated" is about losing in a competition or conflict and does not reflect the idea of reopening an old issue. - "To punish" focuses on imposing a penalty, which may be based on past wrongs but is not the same as reviving an old quarrel. - "To deal with a person strictly" is about strictness in behaviour or rules, again unrelated to dragging past disputes back into the present. Common Pitfalls: Some learners may interpret the word "rip" as suggesting violence or punishment and choose options involving defeat or strictness. Others may fail to connect "old sores" with past emotional pain and instead think of physical injuries only. To avoid such errors, learners need to think in terms of metaphor: old sores equal old hurts, and ripping them up equals reopening them. Recognising this metaphor helps in quickly associating the idiom with reviving old quarrels. Final Answer: The idiom "Rip up old sores" means to revive a forgotten quarrel or reopen old grievances.

Question 6

In the following English idiom question, the phrase "Rule to roost" is given. Out of the four alternatives, select the option that best expresses the intended idiomatic meaning, keeping in mind the common expression "rule the roost" used in English.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The phrase printed in the question as "Rule to roost" is clearly a variant of the well known English idiom "rule the roost". This expression is used to describe someone who dominates a place, group, or situation, making most of the decisions. Idiomatic questions like this check whether candidates can recognise the correct underlying expression and recall its standard meaning related to power and control, rather than interpreting individual words literally. Given Data / Assumptions: - The phrase in the question corresponds to the idiom "rule the roost". - The options are: to repent, to dominate, to understand, and to apologize. - Only one option correctly reflects the idiomatic meaning of having authority or control. - We assume contexts such as family, workplace, or social groups where one person clearly holds the main power. Concept / Approach: In its original imagery, a "roost" is a perch where birds, especially chickens, rest. The bird that "rules the roost" dominates the others. In human contexts, the idiom describes a person who is in charge, exercises control, or dominates decision making. Therefore, we must select an option that refers to dominating or having authority, not to repentance, comprehension, or apology. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall sentences such as "In that household, the grandmother rules the roost" or "The manager rules the roost in the office". Step 2: Interpret these examples. In both cases, the person mentioned has the final say and exercises strong authority over others. Step 3: Examine option B, "To dominate". This directly expresses the idea of having control or power over others and fits the idiom perfectly. Step 4: Evaluate option A, "To repent". This refers to feeling sorry for wrong actions and is about personal regret, not authority. Step 5: Evaluate option C, "To understand". This relates to comprehension and has nothing to do with power or leadership. Step 6: Evaluate option D, "To apologize". This involves expressing regret to someone, which is again unrelated to dominating or ruling. Step 7: Hence, option B is the correct answer because it alone captures the sense of domination or control. Verification / Alternative check: Standard definitions describe "rule the roost" as "to be the person in a group who makes all the decisions" or "to be in complete control". If we substitute "dominate" into example sentences, they remain meaningful: "In that household, the grandmother dominates" matches the sense of ruling the roost. The other options, when inserted, fail to preserve the meaning and often produce sentences that are logically odd or completely different in tone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - "To repent" concerns moral regret and has nothing to do with social power or authority. - "To understand" is about mental comprehension and cannot describe someone's ruling position. - "To apologize" is an act of admitting fault, which is almost the opposite of asserting dominance. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may be confused by the slight misprint "rule to roost" and hesitate, thinking that it might have a different meaning. However, exam questions often assume that test takers will recognise the familiar idiom "rule the roost". Other students might try to interpret "roost" literally and imagine birds repenting or understanding, which leads to incorrect choices. To avoid such errors, it is important to recognise common idioms quickly and recall their standard use in describing power relations. Final Answer: The idiom represented by "Rule to roost" (that is, "rule the roost") means to dominate or to be in complete control.

Question 7

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When properly sequenced, they form a coherent paragraph about global warming. Select the option that gives the most logical order of these sentences.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests the candidate's ability to arrange jumbled sentences into a logically coherent paragraph. The four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S all discuss global warming, but they must be placed in an order that creates a smooth flow from general idea to specific causes and explanations. Skills in coherence, cohesion, and paragraph structure are crucial for success in reading comprehension and writing tasks, and this question is designed to evaluate those skills. Given Data / Assumptions: - Four sentences are given: Q: There are many causes of the global warming which affects human lives and health in many aspects. P: The main cause of global warming is the human being's careless activities. R: Fossil fuels burning for many reasons are highly responsible to increase global warming. S: Ever increasing human population is demanding more resources to live easy and healthy life such as land to live and for crop cultivation, technological growth for comfort and to deal with increasing temperature of atmosphere, etc. - We must choose the sequence that forms the best structured paragraph out of the options QPSR, PQSR, RPQS, and SPQR. - A good paragraph usually moves from a general statement to more specific details or examples. Concept / Approach: For sentence arrangement, the usual approach is to identify the introductory sentence, link supporting ideas, and check how each sentence connects to the next. The introductory sentence should broadly introduce global warming and its many causes. Subsequent sentences should narrow down to main causes, and then possibly mention more detailed explanations such as human activities, fossil fuel use, and population growth. Logical connectors like "the main cause", "fossil fuels", and "ever increasing human population" guide us in determining the correct order. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the best opening sentence. Sentence Q talks generally about many causes of global warming and its effects on human life. This makes it a natural introductory sentence. Step 2: After Q, we expect an explanation of the main cause. Sentence P directly begins with "The main cause of global warming is the human being's careless activities", clearly following from Q. Step 3: Sentence S explains one major type of careless human activity, namely the ever increasing human population and its demand for more land, resources, and technological growth. This supports the idea stated in P. Step 4: Sentence R mentions "Fossil fuels burning for many reasons" as another human related cause that is "highly responsible to increase global warming", which acts as a further detail and fits well after S as another example of harmful human activity. Step 5: Putting this sequence together, we obtain Q (general causes) → P (main cause: human activities) → S (population and resource demand) → R (fossil fuel burning). This corresponds to the option QPSR. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, read the four sentences in the proposed order as a continuous paragraph. The paragraph starts by acknowledging that global warming has many causes and affects human life in many ways (Q). It then narrows down to human carelessness as the main cause (P). S elaborates on one major aspect of that carelessness, the ever increasing population and its demands. R adds another specific factor, burning fossil fuels, which is widely recognised as a key driver of global warming. The narrative becomes more detailed and remains focused on human contributions, which is logically sound. Other options either start with specific details before giving a general statement or mix causes in a less coherent fashion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - PQSR starts with the main cause before acknowledging that there are many causes, which reverses a natural general to specific order and feels slightly awkward. - RPQS begins with a specific detail about fossil fuels, then jumps to general causes, which breaks the logical progression of ideas. - SPQR opens with population details, which feels too narrow as an introduction, and does not clearly lead into a structured explanation of multiple causes. Common Pitfalls: Students may be tempted to select sequences simply because consecutive sentences share similar vocabulary, without checking the overall flow of ideas. Another common mistake is to overlook the importance of a broad introductory sentence that frames the whole paragraph. Remember that well written paragraphs tend to move from general statements to specific examples and that expressions like "the main cause" or "another factor" often signal a shift from overview to detail. Checking for coherence by reading the paragraph aloud in the candidate sequence can help catch awkward jumps or breaks. Final Answer: The most logical sequence of sentences is QPSR.

Question 8

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When properly ordered, they form a coherent paragraph about health and fitness. Select the option that represents the most logical sequence of these …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question assesses the ability to arrange four jumbled sentences into a logically coherent paragraph. All four sentences discuss the importance of health and fitness in the modern environment. To arrive at the correct order, the candidate must identify the best introductory sentence, the supporting details, and the concluding idea, while ensuring that each sentence connects smoothly to the next one. Given Data / Assumptions: The four sentences are as follows: R: In the modern time, where pollution, global warming and other environmental issues have covered us, the importance of health and fitness has increased to a great extent. P: We need to be more physically healthy and fit to win the current environmental challenges. Q: It keeps us away from the diseases, infections and other lethal diseases by reducing extra kilos, improving the strength of muscle and bones, increasing immunity level, and maintaining the healthy functioning of our major body organs. S: It helps us to look better with lots of patience and confidence level. - Options provide several possible orders, and we must choose the one that yields a well structured paragraph. Concept / Approach: A typical paragraph begins with a sentence that sets the context and introduces the main idea. Here, sentence R clearly mentions the modern time, pollution, global warming, and environmental issues, and states that the importance of health and fitness has increased. This makes R a strong candidate for the introductory sentence. The next sentence should logically explain what we need to do in response, which is described in P. After that, Q and S both explain benefits of health and fitness, with Q emphasising disease prevention and S focusing on appearance and confidence. Therefore, Q and S naturally follow as detailed benefits. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Choose the introduction. Sentence R clearly sets the scene by describing the modern world with pollution, global warming, and environmental issues, and it highlights why health and fitness are important. Thus, R should come first. Step 2: Decide what follows R. Once the importance is stated, the paragraph should move to what we need to do. Sentence P states, "We need to be more physically healthy and fit to win the current environmental challenges," which logically follows from R. Step 3: Consider which sentences should come next. Both Q and S begin with "It", referring back to health and fitness. Q explains physical and medical benefits such as preventing diseases and improving immunity. Step 4: After Q describes health benefits in detail, S continues the idea by adding another positive outcome: improved appearance, patience, and confidence. Step 5: Therefore, the sequence R (context), P (need), Q (health benefits), S (additional benefits) produces a coherent paragraph. This order corresponds to the option RPQS. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences together in the order RPQS gives a smooth flow: first the modern environmental challenges are introduced (R), then the need to stay fit is stated (P), then physical and medical benefits are listed (Q), and finally psychological and aesthetic benefits are added (S). This is logical and cohesive. Other orders either start without proper context, put detailed benefits before explaining why health and fitness are needed, or break the natural flow from general situation to specific advantages. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - PQRS starts directly with our need to be fit without explaining the modern environmental context first; it lacks a clear background introduction. - QPRS opens with benefits before explaining why fitness has become more important, which feels abrupt and unanchored. - PRQS starts with a general need (P) but only later brings in the modern environmental context (R), resulting in an awkward shift. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes look only at pronouns like "It" and assume that any sentence containing such a pronoun must immediately follow another, without considering whether the overall story makes sense. Another pitfall is ignoring the time setting "In the modern time" in R, which clearly signals the best starting point. When arranging sentences, always search for the broadest contextual statement first, then move toward more specific needs and finally to lists of benefits or results. Final Answer: The most logical order of the sentences is RPQS.

Question 9

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When correctly sequenced, they form a coherent paragraph about the importance of girls’ education. Choose the option that shows the most logical orde…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks the ability to arrange jumbled sentences into a meaningful and logically connected paragraph. The four sentences all talk about girls’ education and its positive impact on individuals and society. To determine the correct order, we need to identify which sentence introduces the topic, which sentences provide detailed explanations, and which sentence concludes the paragraph. Given Data / Assumptions: The four sentences are: Q: Girls’ education is important from every perspective of life and society. S: Educated women lead a healthier life compared to the uneducated women; they participate in the family matters and in the formal labour markets too; earn well, marry at a considerable age and plan a family in a better manner. R: Not only do they take right decisions for themselves, but they also provide better education and health care options to their children. P: All these factors together can help eradicate poverty, crimes and disease rates. - We must choose the sequence that forms a clear and well organised paragraph. Concept / Approach: A good paragraph on a topic like girls’ education typically begins with a broad statement introducing the importance of the subject, followed by supporting details about the benefits, and ends with a conclusion that summarises the wider social impact. Sentence Q clearly introduces the topic by declaring that girls’ education is important from all perspectives. Sentences S and R then provide concrete benefits for women and their families. Sentence P generalises these benefits to larger social outcomes like reducing poverty, crime, and disease rates, making it suitable as a concluding sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the introduction. Sentence Q clearly states the main idea: the importance of girls’ education in life and society. This must be the opening sentence. Step 2: After the introduction, we need detailed explanation of how educated women benefit. Sentence S describes several advantages: healthier lives, participation in family matters, labour market involvement, good earnings, appropriate age of marriage, and better family planning. Step 3: Sentence R continues the focus on educated women by adding that they take correct decisions for themselves and provide better education and health care to their children, naturally following S. Step 4: Sentence P begins with "All these factors together", clearly referring back to the benefits mentioned in S and R, and draws the conclusion that poverty, crimes, and disease rates can be reduced. This makes P a logical concluding sentence. Step 5: The resulting sequence is Q (introduction) → S (benefits for women) → R (benefits for children) → P (overall social impact), which corresponds to option QSRP. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences in the order QSRP gives a smooth, argumentative paragraph. Q sets up the main theme. S and R provide detailed evidence explaining why girls’ education is so important, and P summarises the cumulative social effects. No abrupt topic shifts or logical gaps are present. Other orderings, such as QRPS or SQRP, break this flow by either moving to the conclusion too early or starting with details before giving the main claim about girls’ education. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - QRPS puts the conclusion P too early, after only one supporting sentence, which weakens the logical build up and leaves R hanging at the end without a proper summarising statement. - SQRP starts with S, which describes outcomes for educated women but does not introduce the central topic explicitly, leaving the reader to guess what the paragraph is about until Q appears later. - SPRQ and SQRP similarly disrupt the natural flow from introduction to evidence to conclusion. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose an order based only on pronouns or linking phrases like "these factors" without carefully checking which sentences those phrases point to. Others may incorrectly assume that any sentence mentioning broad social effects must come first. To avoid such mistakes, always look for a clear topic sentence that names the subject, followed by explanatory details and a logical concluding statement that ties all the points together. Final Answer: The most logical order of the sentences is QSRP.

Question 10

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are provided. When properly arranged, they form a coherent paragraph about forests. Choose the option that gives the most logical sequence of these sentences.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question evaluates the candidate's skill in arranging jumbled sentences into a clear, logically structured paragraph. The four sentences all talk about forests, their definition, their beauty, and the wildlife they contain. A well formed paragraph should start with a general definition or statement, then move to specific details and experiences. Identifying this pattern helps us determine the correct order. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentences are: Q: A dense collection of trees, plants and other vegetation makes up a forest. R: Forests are home to a great variety of wildlife such as animals, birds, reptiles and insects. S: Forests are beautiful natural settings where we can go and experience nature in its splendid expression. P: We can not only see the beauty of nature in the form of floral and faunal diversity, but can also experience peace in the sylvan surroundings. - We must select the option, among QRSP, PQRS, QSRP, and SRPQ, that results in a coherent paragraph. Concept / Approach: A good approach is to first locate the sentence that gives a basic definition of the subject. Here, sentence Q clearly defines what a forest is, making it the natural opening line. Next, we should describe important characteristics of forests: they are habitats and they are beautiful places to visit. Sentence R points out that forests are home to wildlife, while S presents forests as beautiful natural settings for human experience. Finally, P elaborates on that experience by talking about seeing diversity and feeling peace in the surroundings. Thus, the logical flow is from definition to wildlife, then to beauty and personal experience. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Choose the introductory sentence. Q states, "A dense collection of trees, plants and other vegetation makes up a forest", which clearly defines the term forest, so Q should come first. Step 2: After the definition, it is natural to explain what forests contain. Sentence R describes forests as homes to many kinds of wildlife such as animals, birds, reptiles and insects, which directly follows the definition. Step 3: Once we know what forests are and what they contain, we can move to how humans experience them. Sentence S states that forests are beautiful natural settings where we can go and experience nature in its splendid expression. Step 4: Sentence P then elaborates on this experience, adding that we can see floral and faunal diversity and feel peace in sylvan surroundings, which neatly supports and extends S. Step 5: Putting all this together, the order Q → R → S → P forms a well organised paragraph and corresponds to option QRSP. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences in the sequence QRSP gives a smooth narrative: first a definition (Q), second the wildlife aspect (R), third an appreciation of beauty and human experience (S), and fourth a deeper description of that experience (P). There are no abrupt jumps or logical gaps. Other options, like PQRS or QSRP, either start with personal experience before defining the forest or separate connected ideas that should be together, thereby disrupting coherence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - PQRS begins with P, which talks about appreciating beauty and peace without first stating what forests are, causing a lack of introduction. - QSRP places S immediately after Q, jumping from definition to human experience and only then mentioning wildlife in R, which is less natural than introducing wildlife right after the definition. - SRPQ starts with S, referring to forests as beautiful settings without first explaining what a forest is, and the subsequent order does not create as clear a progression of ideas. Common Pitfalls: Students may be tempted to start with the sentence that seems most attractive or descriptive, such as S or P, instead of recognising that a definition or general overview often comes first in expository paragraphs. Another common mistake is to ignore how pronouns and descriptive phrases refer back to earlier sentences. To avoid such errors, look for: a definition or topic sentence, followed by supporting detail sentences, and then a concluding or elaborating sentence about human experience or evaluation. Final Answer: The most logical order of the sentences is QRSP.

Question 11

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When properly sequenced, they form a coherent paragraph about honesty. Select the option that represents the most logical order of these sentences.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines the ability to arrange jumbled sentences into a logically sound paragraph. The four sentences provided discuss the importance of honesty and describe how it is reflected in speech and behaviour. To solve the problem, we must determine which sentence introduces the topic, how the explanation unfolds, and which sentence offers a concluding reflection. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentences are: P: Honesty is an important principle that must govern our lives. Q: Honesty is reflected in our words and deeds. R: When we speak the truth we state the facts as they are. S: We may find it convenient to avoid telling the truth, but if we are honest we should say the truth whatever may be the repercussions. - We are asked to choose from the orders SRQP, SPQR, QRPS, and PQRS. Concept / Approach: A well structured paragraph generally begins with a broad topic sentence, continues with supporting details, and ends with a reflective or instructive statement. Sentence P clearly introduces the central idea that honesty is an important principle guiding life, making it the best opening. Sentence Q logically follows by explaining that honesty shows itself in both words and actions. Sentence R then gives a specific illustration about speaking the truth. Finally, sentence S warns that even when it is inconvenient, honest people must still tell the truth, providing a thoughtful conclusion. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Choose the introductory sentence. P states, "Honesty is an important principle that must govern our lives." This clearly introduces the theme and should come first. Step 2: After stating that honesty is important, we need to explain how it appears in real life. Q states that honesty is reflected in our words and deeds, which directly elaborates on P. Step 3: R further develops the idea from Q by focusing on truthful speech: "When we speak the truth we state the facts as they are." This provides a specific aspect of how honesty appears in our words. Step 4: S now discusses the challenge of practising honesty. It notes that, although we may find it convenient to avoid telling the truth, if we are honest we must still say it regardless of repercussions. This serves well as a concluding sentence, emphasising practical commitment to honesty. Step 5: Putting this together, we get the sequence P → Q → R → S, which matches option PQRS. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences in the sequence PQRS yields a smooth, persuasive paragraph: it starts by declaring the importance of honesty, explains that honesty appears in our words and actions, illustrates what it means to speak truthfully, and then acknowledges the difficulty of telling the truth while insisting that honesty demands it. Other sequences either begin without a clear introduction or place the caution about convenience and repercussions too early, which disrupts the logical buildup of the idea. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - SRQP starts with S, which refers to "telling the truth" before properly introducing honesty itself, making the paragraph feel incomplete at the beginning. - SPQR begins with S and then moves to P, reversing the natural order of introduction and reflection, and causing an awkward transition. - QRPS starts by stating that honesty is reflected in words and deeds, without first defining honesty as an important guiding principle, and ends with P, which would then sound more like a new topic rather than a conclusion. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes overlook the necessity of a clear topic sentence and choose an order based on the presence of pronouns or linking words alone. Another pitfall is to place a reflective or moralising statement like S too early, which harms the logical flow. To avoid these mistakes, always identify the broadest statement introducing the concept, then arrange supporting explanations, and finally place the sentence that offers deeper reflection or practical advice at the end. Final Answer: The most logical sequence of the sentences is PQRS.

Question 12

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When arranged correctly, they form a coherent paragraph about the quality of kindness. Select the option that shows the most logical order of these s…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence arrangement question evaluates the ability to organise four jumbled statements into a connected paragraph. The sentences describe the quality of kindness and explain how it can be shown to different beings. To answer correctly, we must determine the introductory definition, the sequence of examples, and the natural flow of ideas. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentences are: Q: Kindness is a quality that human beings show in various ways. P: We can be kind to human beings who need our help. S: We can be kind to our family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. R: We can also be kind to other life forms like dogs, cats and other pets and domesticated animals, and to wildlife like birds and animals. - The options provide different possible orders, and only one results in a clearly organised paragraph. Concept / Approach: A coherent paragraph about a moral quality like kindness usually starts with a broad definition, then provides examples of where and to whom kindness can be shown. Sentence Q explicitly defines kindness as a quality shown in various ways, so it is the natural introductory sentence. P and S both deal with kindness towards human beings, while R extends kindness to animals and other life forms. A logical progression would first define kindness, then mention kindness to people in general, then to specific groups like family and neighbours, and finally broaden the scope to include other creatures. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Select the introduction. Q introduces the main idea by defining kindness as a quality shown in various ways. Hence Q should come first. Step 2: After the general definition, it is logical to show kindness toward other human beings who need help. P states "We can be kind to human beings who need our help", which naturally follows Q. Step 3: S narrows this further by identifying specific human relationships: family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. This flows smoothly from the more general idea in P. Step 4: Finally, R broadens the scope again, reminding us that kindness is not limited to humans but extends to pets, domesticated animals, birds, and wildlife. This provides a suitable closing expansion of the idea. Step 5: Therefore, the order Q → P → S → R forms a coherent paragraph and corresponds to the option QPSR. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sequence QPSR as a single paragraph yields a clear logical flow: the paragraph starts with a definition, then explains how we can help other people, then specifically our close social circle, and finally all living beings including animals and birds. The connections between sentences are smooth, and the message becomes increasingly inclusive. Other sequences either start with examples before giving a definition or mix human and animal examples in a way that feels less structured and less natural. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - QPRS moves directly from kindness in general to pets and animals, then back to family and neighbours, which creates a distracting jump in focus. - PQSR starts with P, so the main quality of kindness is not clearly introduced before examples of helping human beings are mentioned. - PQRS similarly begins with P instead of Q and leaves the general definition until later, which weakens the opening of the paragraph. Common Pitfalls: Students often look only for pronoun references like "We" without paying attention to how the examples are structured from general to specific. Another common error is to begin with a specific group (such as family) rather than with the wider definition. To avoid such mistakes, always search for the sentence that introduces the core idea and then place examples in an order that moves from the most general to the more detailed and specific. Final Answer: The most logical sequence of the sentences is QPSR.

Question 13

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When correctly arranged, they form a coherent paragraph about time management. Choose the option that represents the most logical order of these sent…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests the candidate's ability to put jumbled sentences in a logical sequence to form a meaningful paragraph. The sentences discuss time management, the equal number of hours available to everyone, and the consequences of using time well or badly. The task is to determine which sentence should introduce the topic, how the explanation should proceed, and which statement should provide a concluding insight. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentences are: P: If we spend the twenty-four hours that we have in a day in an efficient way we can be successful in completing the tasks and achieving our goals for the day. Q: If we wish to succeed in achieving our short term and long term goals we need to manage our time effectively. R: If we waste our time on vain activities we either get stressed out doing the tasks we need to do or fail to do what needs to be done. S: We all have the same number of hours at our disposal each day. - We must select the sequence from PRSQ, RPSQ, RSQP, and SPRQ that produces the clearest paragraph. Concept / Approach: A well formed paragraph about time management should probably start with a general observation about time, then explain the effect of good and bad time use, and finally state how this connects to overall success. Sentence S presents the basic fact that everyone has the same number of hours each day. P explains what happens if we spend those twenty four hours efficiently, while R explains what happens if we waste them. Q gives a general principle connecting time management to success in short term and long term goals, which fits well as a concluding idea. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the best introductory sentence. S states, "We all have the same number of hours at our disposal each day", which is a broad fact about time and is suitable as an opening. Step 2: Next, we should see what happens if that time is used well. P explains that efficient use of the twenty four hours leads to successful completion of tasks and achievement of daily goals. So P logically follows S. Step 3: After describing efficient use, we should contrast it with inefficient use. R explains the negative consequence: if we waste time on vain activities, we become stressed or fail to do what is necessary. Thus R naturally follows P. Step 4: Finally, Q generalises the lesson by stating that if we wish to succeed in both short term and long term goals, we need to manage time effectively. This sentence sums up the message and provides a concluding principle. Step 5: The resulting order is S → P → R → Q, which corresponds to option SPRQ. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences in the order SPRQ forms a coherent paragraph: it starts with a universal fact (equal hours), then presents the benefit of using time efficiently (P), the problem of wasting time (R), and finally the broader advice on successful goal achievement through time management (Q). None of the other options create such a smooth progression. For example, PRSQ begins with efficient use of time without first mentioning that everyone has the same twenty four hours, and RPSQ begins with negative consequences before stating why time is important, which feels less natural. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - PRSQ lacks an introductory observation and starts directly with a condition about spending twenty four hours efficiently, which is less effective without the context provided by S. - RPSQ begins with negative consequences of wasting time before explaining the background fact about equal hours, leading to a less organised flow. - RSQP and RPSQ create sequences where the explanation of consequences and principles does not follow a clear general to specific to general pattern. Common Pitfalls: Students may sometimes focus only on the conditional structures ("If we spend", "If we waste", "If we wish") and assume that any conditional sentence must begin the paragraph, ignoring the necessity of a neutral, factual introduction. Another mistake is not recognising summary sentences like Q, which are better suited for concluding the paragraph. When tackling such questions, always look for: a factual or definitional opening, followed by contrasting details or examples, and ending with a summarising statement. Final Answer: The most logical order of the sentences is SPRQ.

Question 14

In the following question on sentence arrangement, four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S are given. When properly ordered, they form a coherent paragraph about governments and reports on their performance. Select the option that represents the most …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence arrangement question concerns how governments react to different kinds of reports. The four given sentences examine the difference between accepting positive reports and rejecting negative ones, and then draw a conclusion about this behaviour. To answer correctly, we must identify the introductory statement, the supporting examples, and the final critical comment. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentences are: S: No government likes negative reports on its performance. R: Every government is quick to accept reports that give it a pat on the back – as the Indian government was after the latest ease of doing business report. P: But when it comes to negative human rights reports or one on the environment, it rubbishes them. Q: This kind of behaviour is not going to solve the problem. - The task is to select from RSPQ, PRSQ, SRPQ, and RPSQ the order that produces a clear and logical paragraph. Concept / Approach: A good paragraph begins with a general observation, follows with examples that illustrate that observation, and then offers a conclusion or evaluation. Sentence S makes a broad claim that no government likes negative reports on its performance, which is a suitable opening. Sentence R gives a supporting example of how governments welcome positive reports. Sentence P contrasts this by showing how governments react to negative reports, especially about human rights and the environment. Finally, sentence Q comments critically on this inconsistent behaviour, making it an appropriate concluding sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the introductory statement. S states the general idea that no government likes negative reports on its performance. This is clearly a broad, topic-setting sentence and should come first. Step 2: After S, we need an example of how governments behave when reports are positive. R provides this by explaining that every government quickly accepts reports that praise it, and even gives the example of the Indian government and the ease of doing business report. Step 3: Having seen the reaction to positive reports, we now consider negative reports. P begins with "But when it comes to negative human rights reports or one on the environment, it rubbishes them." This contrast with R is clearly signalled by "But" and logically follows. Step 4: Q then offers an evaluative comment on this pattern: "This kind of behaviour is not going to solve the problem." This concluding sentence reflects on the actions described in S, R, and P. Step 5: Therefore, the correct sequence is S → R → P → Q, which corresponds to option SRPQ. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences in the order SRPQ creates a coherent paragraph. It starts with a general statement about governments disliking negative reports (S), then shows that they embrace positive reports with enthusiasm (R), contrasts that with their tendency to dismiss negative human rights and environmental reports (P), and finally criticises this selective behaviour as ineffective (Q). Alternative orders either begin with an example before stating the general principle or place the conclusion too early, both of which weaken the logical structure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - RSPQ begins with an example before stating the general statement in S, making the paragraph feel less well framed and forcing the reader to infer the main claim only after the example. - PRSQ starts with the contrasting negative report discussion before the broad statement about governments disliking negative reports, which makes the "But" in P less clear. - RPSQ misplaces both the general statement and the concluding comment, creating a less coherent flow from general idea to examples and evaluation. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to pick the sentence with "This kind of behaviour" (Q) as an early sentence because it sounds evaluative and strong, without checking whether the behaviour it references has already been described. Another pitfall is ignoring the role of contrasting conjunctions like "But" in P, which must link back to something stated earlier. When arranging sentences, always check that contrast words and pronouns have clear referents in the sentences that precede them. Final Answer: The most logical order of the sentences is SRPQ.

Question 15

Sentence arrangement: choose the most logical order of the labelled sentences P, Q, R and S so that they form a coherent paragraph about the instability between the two World Wars, the Great Depression and the rise of Hitler to power.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is a classic sentence arrangement or para jumble task. The learner has to arrange four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S into a coherent paragraph about the years between the First and Second World Wars, the Great Depression and how Adolf Hitler used that situation to come to power. These questions test awareness of historical sequence, logical flow and the use of connector phrases such as coming to power, capitalised on this and declaring that Germany needed more living space. Given Data / Assumptions: Q states that the years between the first and second world wars were a time of instability. P mentions that the Great Depression in 1929 plunged the world into recession. R explains that Hitler, coming to power in 1933, capitalised on this economic decline and on resentment caused by the Treaty of Versailles. S begins with Hitler declaring that Germany needed Lebensraum or living space but is left incomplete in the stem. We assume that all four sentences come from a single historical explanation of events in chronological order. Concept / Approach: In sentence arrangement questions, the best way to proceed is to identify the broad introductory idea, then follow the time line and cause effect chain. Historical paragraphs usually begin with a general time frame, move to a major event, then explain how a political leader took advantage of that context and finally present that leader’s specific policy declarations. We also look for pronouns and phrases such as this economic decline that obviously refer back to an earlier sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the natural introduction. Q talks generally about the years between the two world wars and calls them a time of instability. This clearly looks like an opening sentence. Step 2: Next we ask what caused that instability. P explains the Great Depression that began in 1929 and plunged the world into recession, which fits directly after Q as a key cause. Step 3: Once the economic crisis is mentioned, we look for who used it. R talks about Hitler coming to power in 1933 and capitalising on this economic decline and on resentment created by the Treaty of Versailles. The phrase this economic decline clearly refers back to P. Step 4: Finally S continues the description of Hitler by showing what he declared when in power, namely that Germany needed Lebensraum or living space. This naturally follows R. Step 5: Putting these pieces together gives the order Q P R S, which corresponds to option QPRS. Verification / Alternative check: If we read QPRS as a single paragraph, the sequence is smooth and chronological. First we are told that the inter war years were unstable. Then the Great Depression is introduced as a dramatic economic event that increased that instability. After that the paragraph narrows to the specific German context and to Hitler, who comes to power in 1933 and exploits both the depression and resentment against the Treaty of Versailles. Finally, S continues describing Hitler’s programme by mentioning his call for living space. There are no abrupt jumps in time or topic, and every this or that has a clear reference in the previous sentence, which confirms that the order is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option QSRP places S straight after Q, but S talks about Hitler’s slogan without first introducing him or the Great Depression, so it feels disconnected. Option QRPS puts R directly after Q, which introduces Hitler before the Great Depression that he is said to capitalise on, breaking the cause effect chain. Option PRQS starts with P and ignores the broad framing of Q, then jumps in an awkward manner from Hitler’s declaration in S back to the general inter war instability in Q. The extra option PQSR similarly fails to maintain a clear historical sequence. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake in para jumbles is to focus only on the order that sounds grammatically smooth within each pair of sentences and to ignore wider chronology and cause effect links. Another frequent error is to treat any sentence that names a famous person, such as Hitler, as the opening, even when a broader background sentence such as Q is provided. Learners also sometimes ignore connector words like this economic decline, which are powerful clues for correct ordering. Final Answer: The most logical and coherent order of the sentences is QPRS, so option QPRS is correct.

Question 16

Sentence arrangement: choose the most logical order of the labelled sentences P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph about reading as an essential basic skill and why modern society is ignoring it.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This para jumble question asks you to arrange sentences about the importance of reading and its role in language development. The task is to create a coherent paragraph that first defines reading, then explains its benefits, and finally comments on how modern life is neglecting this important activity. Understanding logical progression from definition to elaboration and then to social commentary is the key skill examined here. Given Data / Assumptions: R states that reading is an essential basic skills building activity. S lists benefits such as vocabulary enrichment, idea collection, familiarity with writing formats and fluency in speaking, all of which depend on reading. P says that one’s language fluency is determined by the quality of reading. Q points out that although all cultures stress reading, in modern times this activity is being ignored. We assume that all four sentences are meant to form one persuasive paragraph about reading habits. Concept / Approach: A well written paragraph usually starts with a broad definition or main claim, moves on to add supporting details, then narrows to a specific effect or application and finally comments on a contrasting modern trend. In sentence arrangement questions we therefore look for the general statement, supporting explanations, and concluding evaluation. We also check that pronouns and phrases like this activity have a clear reference in earlier sentences. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the general opening. R introduces reading as an essential basic skills building activity, which is a natural starting point. Step 2: After the definition we look for a sentence that adds broad benefits. S explains several outcomes of reading, such as vocabulary enrichment and speaking fluency, so it logically follows R. Step 3: P then focuses on one specific result, namely that language fluency depends on the quality of reading. This continues the idea of benefits at a more focused level and thus fits after S. Step 4: Finally Q contrasts the traditional stress on reading with the modern tendency to ignore it. The phrase this activity refers back to reading described in R, S and P, making Q an effective concluding remark. Step 5: Putting the sentences together in this order gives R S P Q, which corresponds to option RSPQ. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sequence RSPQ as a single paragraph, the logic is smooth. First the writer states that reading is essential. Then the paragraph describes how reading enriches vocabulary, provides ideas and improves formats and speaking. Next it states that language fluency in particular is determined by the quality of reading, which narrows the focus to one key skill. Finally, the author laments that despite this importance, present day society is neglecting the habit of reading. No sentence feels out of place and each new idea builds on or comments on earlier ones, which confirms that RSPQ is coherent. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option QRPS starts with Q, complaining that reading is ignored, before even stating why reading matters, which weakens coherence. Option PQRS begins with a rather narrow statement about language fluency and does not clearly introduce reading as an essential skill first. Option RPSQ jumps from the general statement in R to P, then to the complaint in Q, and only later lists benefits in S, which feels badly ordered. The extra option SRPQ starts abruptly with S, listing benefits without defining reading. Common Pitfalls: Students often misplace Q because they are attracted by the contrast in in all cultures and civilizations but in modern times. However, such contrastive comments usually work best after the core argument has been fully presented. Another pitfall is to start with P since it mentions language fluency, a familiar phrase, but this sentence is actually dependent on the broader concept of reading and therefore should not open the paragraph. Final Answer: The sentences form a coherent paragraph in the order RSPQ, so option RSPQ is correct.

Question 17

Sentence arrangement: choose the most logical order of the labelled sentences P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph about social networking sites distracting students and the need for action.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence arrangement question discusses the problem of smart phones, social media and networking sites distracting students and the need for parents, teachers and the government to respond. The task is to sequence four labelled sentences into a logically flowing paragraph. The core ideas move from introduction of the distraction, to the behaviour of young people, to the description of wasted time, and finally to a call for remedial action. Given Data / Assumptions: R introduces smart phones, computers, social media and networking sites as sources of major distraction for students. P states that young boys and girls seem to have become inordinately addicted to these sites. S says that they are thoughtlessly and uselessly wasting their precious time on these sites. Q calls on parents, teachers and the government to look into the problems and formulate a strategy to curb or stop the negative influence of these sites on youth. We assume the paragraph is intended as a short opinion piece highlighting a modern educational concern. Concept / Approach: In para jumbles, the most common pattern is introduction of the topic, followed by description or evidence, and ending with suggestion or conclusion. Here, sentence Q clearly contains a recommendation, so it likely comes last. The sentence that has the widest scope and introduces both the devices and the sites is the best candidate to open the paragraph. The rest must describe the addiction and its consequence in a natural order. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The sentence with the broadest, most introductory feel is R, which lists devices and networking sites and names them as a source of major distractions for students. R is therefore the opening. Step 2: After this, we naturally want to know who is affected. P answers this by saying that young boys and girls have become inordinately addicted to these sites. So P follows R. Step 3: S then explains the result of that addiction, namely that these young people are wasting their precious time on the sites without thought or usefulness. Thus S follows P. Step 4: Finally, Q proposes that parents, teachers and the government should study these problems and create a strategy to curb or stop the influence of networking sites. This call to action is appropriate as the concluding sentence. Step 5: Putting these in order gives R P S Q, corresponding to option RPSQ. Verification / Alternative check: When read together as RPSQ, the paragraph flows smoothly from the technology and sites themselves, to the affected group, to the behaviour, and finally to a social response. The pronoun these sites in P and S clearly refers back to the networking sites mentioned in R. The phrase the problems being caused by these networking sites in Q refers back to the situations described in P and S, which confirms that Q belongs at the end. There are no abrupt shifts or missing links in this order. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option PRQS starts with the addiction of young boys and girls without explaining first what they are addicted to. Option PSQR moves from addiction to waste of time, then to the call for action, and finally back to the general description of the sites, which breaks chronological logic. Option QRPS begins with the call to action, which makes no sense before the problem is even described. The additional option RPQS incorrectly places Q before S and leaves the consequence of addiction to be stated after the solution, which is not persuasive writing. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is to treat P as the opener simply because it mentions young boys and girls, which seems like a natural subject. However, good writers usually begin with the broader phenomenon before focusing on particular victims. Another error is to place Q too early because it mentions parents and government, but recommendations should only come after a clear picture of the problem has been painted. Final Answer: The coherent paragraph is formed by the order RPSQ, so option RPSQ is correct.

Question 18

Sentence arrangement: choose the most logical order of the labelled sentences P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph explaining what recycling is and why it is needed to conserve limited natural resources.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This para jumble question focuses on recycling and the conservation of natural resources. The four sentences talk about the limited nature of earth's resources, define recycling, explain how recyclable products are converted, and emphasise that recycling reduces waste for present and future generations. The test is whether you can recognise a logical flow from problem statement to explanation and benefit. Given Data / Assumptions: S says that natural resources on earth are limited and therefore we must conserve, recycle and reuse whenever possible. P explains that recycling involves turning used materials labelled as recyclable over to a facility so that they can be reused for a new purpose. R adds that a recyclable product is turned back into a raw form that can be used to create a new and different product. Q notes that not only are natural resources limited, but recycling efforts can reduce waste that would harm the planet today and in the future. We assume all four sentences belong to one explanatory paragraph about recycling. Concept / Approach: A clear expository paragraph on an environmental topic typically begins with the big idea or problem, then moves to definitions, then to more technical detail and finally to a statement of benefits or consequences. Here, the main problem is limited natural resources. The sentences that provide definitions and mechanisms for recycling should follow this problem, and the sentence that stresses ongoing benefits will likely appear near the end. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: S is a broad statement about natural resources and the need to conserve, recycle and reuse. This clearly works as an introductory sentence that sets the context. Step 2: After S has introduced recycling as one required action, P should naturally appear because it defines what recycling basically involves in practical terms, namely turning used materials over to a facility for reuse. Step 3: R then continues the explanation by describing what happens at a deeper level: the recyclable product is converted back into a raw form that can be used to create something new. R is thus a more technical follow up to P. Step 4: Q is best placed last. It reinforces the opening idea that natural resources are limited and adds the conclusion that recycling efforts can significantly reduce additional waste, protecting the planet for current and future generations. Step 5: Putting these together gives S P R Q, which corresponds to option SPQR. Verification / Alternative check: When we read SPQR as a paragraph, it sounds like a well structured explanation. The author starts by telling us that resources are limited and that we must conserve and recycle. Then we are told what recycling looks like in daily life, followed by what happens to recyclable materials on a technical level. Finally, the writer sums up by connecting limited resources and recycling to the reduction of harmful waste. There is a smooth progression from problem to solution and benefit, confirming the correctness of SPQR. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option PRSQ starts with P, defining recycling without first mentioning why it is needed, and ends with Q before S, which makes the opening about limited resources appear late and breaks the flow. Option RPQS starts even more abruptly with R, a technical point about raw forms, and then jumps irregularly through the remaining ideas. Option PSQR begins with the definition in P and then moves back to S, which should have introduced the paragraph, so the order feels reversed. The additional option SRPQ places Q too early and separates P and R, which both belong together as a pair of explanatory sentences. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to treat Q as a natural opener simply because it restates that natural resources are limited and talks about recycling. However, S states the same limitation in a more direct way and also includes the imperative to conserve, recycle and reuse, making it the stronger introduction. Learners also sometimes feel that technical details should always come last, but in expository writing those details often appear in the middle, followed by a concluding sentence about long term effects. Final Answer: The correct logical order of the sentences is SPQR, so option SPQR is the right answer.

Question 19

Vocabulary in context: in the passage about the rising sun and inner awareness, choose the word that best completes the phrase "The rising sun has great inner ______."

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is part of a passage about the rising sun and its spiritual or inner meaning. The writer explains that sunrise does not only mark the beginning of a new morning in the outer world but also awakens new rhythms and vibrations within our inner being. The blank appears in the line "The rising sun has great inner ______." The task is to choose the word that best reflects this deep, positive meaning of sunrise in both outer and inner life. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage says that the rising sun wakes up trees, birds and flowers and that sunrise is not just an external event but something that can happen deep within us if we remain alert and aware. The author speaks about opening the inner door and the window of our inner world to let the new dawn enter and allow the beautiful experience of sunrise within ourselves. The tone is clearly positive, spiritual and appreciative, not negative or dismissive. The given options are significance, meaninglessness, triviality, denotation and a fifth added option importance that is also positive but less precise. Concept / Approach: The key concept here is vocabulary in context. We need a noun that fits both grammatically and semantically with great inner and that matches the emotional tone and theme of the entire passage. Words such as meaninglessness and triviality carry negative meanings that would contradict the reverent tone. Denotation is a technical term that refers to basic dictionary meaning and does not suit the spiritual context. We therefore look for a word that captures deep meaning and value, which is significance. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the whole passage to understand that the author is celebrating sunrise as a profound event that awakens outer nature and inner consciousness. Step 2: Focus on the phrase has great inner ______. The adjective great already signals something positive and important, not something empty or useless. Step 3: Test significance in the blank: the rising sun has great inner significance. This expresses that sunrise has deep inner meaning, which fits the spiritual theme. Step 4: Test the other options mentally to check for clashes in meaning or tone. Step 5: Conclude that significance is the most appropriate and nuanced word for this context. Verification / Alternative check: If we replace the blank with significance and read the full sentence and surrounding lines, the paragraph flows naturally. Sunrise is first presented as an outer event, then as something with inner significance. The writer then explains exactly what that significance is: the awakening of inner rhythms and vibrations and the possibility of a beautiful inner experience beyond anything earthly. No awkwardness or contradiction appears, which confirms that significance fits perfectly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Meaninglessness would result in the phrase has great inner meaninglessness, which is a contradiction because great and meaninglessness push in opposite directions. Triviality suggests that sunrise is insignificant, whereas the passage tries to show the opposite. Denotation refers to the literal meaning of a word and belongs more to the language of dictionaries than to spiritual writing about inner experience. Importance is close in meaning but less precise; the phrase inner significance is a more natural collocation in philosophical and spiritual English than inner importance, which sounds slightly clumsy. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to choose importance simply because it is a familiar word that seems to fit after inner. However, careful readers notice that the style of the passage is somewhat elevated, and significance is stylistically stronger and more idiomatic. Another pitfall is not reading the entire passage and trying to fill the blank based only on the short phrase, which increases the chance of picking a word that does not fully match the author’s tone and intention. Final Answer: The word that best completes the phrase is significance, so option significance is correct.

Question 20

Vocabulary in context: in the passage about the rising sun, choose the verb that best completes the phrase "Not just to ______ the new morning right after the dark night."

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question continues the same passage about the rising sun and its inner meaning. The sentence containing the blank reads, in simplified form, "The rising sun has great inner significance. Not just to ______ the new morning right after the dark night, but also the new rhythms and vibrations within existence." The writer wants a verb that describes the role of sunrise in announcing or beginning the new day, while the rest of the sentence explains its deeper spiritual effect. Given Data / Assumptions: The passage contrasts night and the new morning and associates the rising sun with awakening in nature and within us. The verb in the blank must follow to and must connect naturally with the idea of a new morning right after the dark night. The options are hide, herald, withhold, finish and an added distractor delay. The overall tone is positive and celebratory, not negative or obstructive. Concept / Approach: We are dealing with precise verb choice in a fixed expression. In English, sunrise and dawn are often said to herald a new day, meaning they announce or signal its arrival. The alternatives hide, withhold, finish or delay all emphasise preventing, ending or postponing something, which does not match the idea of the sun allowing the new morning to arrive. We therefore look for the verb that means announce or signal, which is herald. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the full sentence and understand that the author is saying sunrise does more than simply bring in the new morning. Step 2: Realise that sunrise is associated with the arrival of the day, so the verb must express introduction, not hiding or ending. Step 3: Test herald in the blank: not just to herald the new morning right after the dark night. This means not only to announce or mark the arrival of the new morning, which fits perfectly. Step 4: Test hide, withhold, finish and delay mentally and see that none makes sense. The sun does not hide or withhold the new morning; it also does not finish it. Step 5: Conclude that herald is the only option that expresses the intended meaning. Verification / Alternative check: In literature and spirituality, phrases like dawn heralds a new beginning and sunrise heralds hope are very common. This confirms that herald collocates naturally with new morning. When we substitute herald into the sentence and read the next clause, but also the new rhythms and vibrations within existence, the contrast works: sunrise not only heralds the morning but also awakens inner rhythms. The logic and style are both preserved. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Hide contradicts the image of sunrise and would suggest concealing the new morning. Withhold suggests keeping something back and is incompatible with the natural unfolding of day and night. Finish would describe the end of a period, but sunrise begins the morning rather than finishing it. Delay would imply that sunrise slows the arrival of the morning, which is the opposite of the intended idea. These verbs clash with both the physical reality of sunrise and the symbolic tone of the passage. Common Pitfalls: Learners who are unfamiliar with the word herald might be tempted to choose a more common verb like finish simply because it is familiar, even though it does not fit the meaning. This question rewards not only vocabulary knowledge but also the ability to match words with the images and metaphors used in the text. It is helpful to remember that many literary descriptions of dawn use herald and similar verbs like announce, signal or usher in. Final Answer: The verb that correctly completes the phrase is herald, so option herald is correct.

English Questions