Question 1

Rearrange the following parts of the sentence to form a coherent paragraph about Nelson Mandela and apartheid in South Africa. P: His story symbolises a lifelong struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Q: Nelson Mandela was born on 18 July 1918 …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This rearrangement question presents four parts about Nelson Mandela, his birth, his struggle against apartheid and the nature of apartheid. The final paragraph should read like a short biographical sketch that moves from basic facts to the larger struggle and its challenges. To answer correctly, we need to track how pronouns like "it" are used and how the ideas of "apartheid" and "oppression" are introduced and elaborated. Given Data / Assumptions: Q gives factual information about Mandela's birth: date, place and political region. P states that his story symbolises a lifelong struggle against apartheid. R defines apartheid as a terrible form of institutionalised racism that gripped South African society. S explains that it was not easy for Mandela to fight against it because he himself was among the oppressed. We assume the paragraph will begin with biographical background, then introduce his struggle, then explain what apartheid was, and finally describe the difficulty of fighting it. Concept / Approach: For biographical rearrangement: Start with basic birth details or introductory facts about the person. Move to the main theme or symbolic meaning of that life. Introduce and explain any key terms (here, "apartheid") that appear in the discussion. Conclude with a sentence that combines the person and the difficult conditions under which the struggle took place. We also pay attention to "It" in S, which should refer back to apartheid mentioned just earlier. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Q is clearly the opening sentence because it introduces Nelson Mandela with his full name, date of birth and birthplace. Step 2: P then follows logically by explaining the significance of his life story, saying that it symbolises a lifelong struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Step 3: R must come next, because it explains what apartheid actually was, describing it as institutionalised racism that gripped South African society. Step 4: S is the natural conclusion, since "It was not easy for Mandela to fight against it" uses the pronoun "it" to refer to apartheid just described in R, and comments on the difficulty of his struggle because he was among the oppressed. Step 5: The order QPRS therefore creates a smooth narrative from birth to symbolic struggle, to defining apartheid, to personal difficulty. Verification / Alternative check: If we read QPRS as one paragraph, there is no confusion about references. The subject is introduced, the focus of his life is stated, apartheid is defined, and the hardship of the struggle is emphasised. In QPSR, we would end on a definition of apartheid instead of on Mandela's struggle, which is less satisfying as a conclusion. QRSP places definition R right after birth details Q and then discusses struggle P and S, but P uses "apartheid" before we have clearly linked it to Mandela's story as a symbol, making the flow weaker. PRSQ cannot open with P because "His story" and "apartheid" are mentioned before Nelson Mandela has even been named, which is confusing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: QPSR: Ends abruptly with a definition instead of completing the thought about Mandela's struggle. QRSP: Introduces apartheid immediately after birth details, then states that his story symbolises the struggle; this order is possible but less logically developed than first linking Mandela to the struggle and then defining apartheid. PRSQ: Starts with "His story" without identifying who he is, and uses apartheid without context. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overlook the need to introduce the main character by name before referring to "his story". Another common error is to ignore the pronoun "it" in S; this clearly refers to apartheid and must follow the sentence defining it. When solving such questions, always check whether each pronoun has a clear and unambiguous antecedent in the immediately preceding sentence or two. If not, the order is almost certainly wrong. Final Answer: The correct order is QPRS, so the correct option is QPRS.

Question 2

Rearrange the following parts of the sentence to form a coherent paragraph about agriculture and climate change in developing and least developed countries. P: In the least developed countries, if agricultural productivity were drastically reduced b…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This rearrangement question discusses how agriculture and economies in developing and least developed countries may be affected by climate change. The four parts mention dependence on agriculture, vulnerability, the role of agriculture as the only climate affected sector and a scenario for least developed countries. The challenge is to order these so that they form a logically connected mini paragraph comparing different country groups and highlighting vulnerability. Given Data / Assumptions: R states that in developing countries a large share of gross national product and population depend on agriculture. Q remarks that it may still be vulnerable to climate change for many years to come. P discusses least developed countries and how a drastic reduction in agricultural productivity would raise the cost of living. S says agriculture is practically the only sector of the economy directly affected by climate. "It" in Q refers back to agriculture based economies described in R and the subsequent discussion. Concept / Approach: For this comparative economic passage: Identify which sentence opens the discussion of developing countries; R clearly uses "in contrast", implying earlier context from a larger passage but still forming a reasonable start for this set. Follow this with a statement about vulnerability using the pronoun "It", which must refer to agriculture in such economies. Then move to the specific case of least developed countries in P, which builds on the general statement. Finally, end with S as a general summary that reinforces why agriculture is central when discussing climate change and economic impact. Although the passage appears to be part of a longer text, we choose the best local ordering among the given options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: R introduces the focus on developing countries and quantifies dependence on agriculture, making it a strong starting point within the given set. Step 2: Q follows because "It may still be vulnerable to climate change" refers to the agricultural sector and economies described in R. This sentence comments on that dependence. Step 3: P then shifts the focus to least developed countries, which is a natural next step after discussing developing countries and vulnerability. It describes a possible scenario where reduced agricultural productivity raises living costs. Step 4: S works as a general reinforcing remark about agriculture being practically the only sector directly affected by climate, summarising why the earlier discussion about climate change and agriculture matters. Step 5: The order RQPS therefore develops the argument from dependence, to vulnerability, to concrete consequences, and then to an overall generalisation. Verification / Alternative check: When read as RQPS, the paragraph flows sensibly, even though we sense that some earlier context is missing from the original longer passage. Among the given options, PQRS would have "It may still be vulnerable" follow a scenario in least developed countries, which makes the pronoun "It" ambiguous. RPSQ places S last but separates the vulnerability sentence Q from R, weakening the connection between dependence and vulnerability. The "none" option is incorrect because RQPS provides an acceptable coherent sequence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: PQRS: Begins with least developed countries before establishing the general dependence pattern in developing countries, and the pronoun "It" in Q does not clearly refer to any single entity. RPSQ: Interrupts the natural connection between R and Q by inserting P, making "It may still be vulnerable" feel less directly tied to the dependence described in R. none: This suggests that no arrangement is correct, but RQPS forms a clear, if partial, mini paragraph. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may be tempted to choose "none" when the text feels like an extract from a larger passage, but in competitive exams, one of the given orders almost always works best internally. Another pitfall is not carefully tracking the pronoun "It" in Q. If "It" cannot be unambiguously linked to a previous noun, the order is wrong. R immediately before Q gives the cleanest reference to agriculture dependent economies. Final Answer: The most coherent order among the given options is RQPS, so the correct option is RQPS.

Question 3

Rearrange the following parts of the sentence to form a coherent paragraph about freedom of speech and development. P: Freedom of speech is essential for the all round growth and development of a person as well as a nation as a whole. Q: A nation fi…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question requires us to arrange four parts into a paragraph about the importance of freedom of speech for individuals and nations. The sentences mention the essential role of free speech in development, how restrictions hamper development, the personal consequences of such restrictions and the national consequences in terms of discontent. The correct sequence must move from broad principle to specific effects on individuals and then to the effect on the nation as a whole. Given Data / Assumptions: P states the main principle: freedom of speech is essential for the overall growth and development of both a person and the nation. S warns that imposing restrictions on what one speaks or hears can hamper personal development. R adds that such restrictions can create discomfort and dissatisfaction that lead to stress. Q generalises that a nation filled with discontented people can never grow in the right direction. We assume the paragraph should introduce the principle, then show how restrictions affect individuals and finally connect individual discontent to national stagnation. Concept / Approach: For such argumentative descriptive paragraphs: Start with a general statement of the main idea or principle (here, the importance of free speech). Move to the negative effect when this principle is violated at the individual level. Explain the emotional and psychological outcome for individuals. Conclude by extending the implications to the entire nation. We watch for how "It" in R refers back to the imposition of restrictions mentioned in S. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: P serves as the topic sentence because it clearly states that freedom of speech is essential for growth and development of both individuals and the nation. Step 2: S logically follows as it explains what happens when that freedom is restricted: development of a person can be hampered by restrictions on speech and hearing. Step 3: R continues this line of thought by describing the emotional consequences, saying that such restrictions can create discomfort and dissatisfaction that lead to stress. The pronoun "It" refers to the act of imposing restrictions. Step 4: Q then generalises the effect to the national level, stating that a nation full of discontented people cannot grow in the right direction. This ties back to both P and the stress described in R. Step 5: Thus, the arrangement PSRQ forms a logical chain from principle to personal harm to national effect. Verification / Alternative check: Reading PSRQ as one paragraph, we see a clear argument: freedom of speech is necessary; restricting it hampers development; such restrictions cause stress and dissatisfaction; a nation full of such unhappy people cannot grow properly. PRQS would jump from the principle straight to the national consequence, then back to personal effects, which breaks the progression. RSPQ would start with "It can even create discomfort..." without explaining what "It" refers to, so it cannot be the beginning. SPRQ ignores the need to first state the positive principle before criticising restrictions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: PRQS: Does not maintain a clear order from individual level to national level; it mixes the consequences. RSPQ: Opens with a pronoun "It" that lacks a clear antecedent, causing confusion. SPRQ: Begins with restrictions without first stating that freedom of speech is valuable, which weakens the argument. Common Pitfalls: Many learners overlook the role of the topic sentence and may start with any apparently strong statement. Another pitfall is failing to notice how pronouns like "It" must refer to something already mentioned. In rearrangement questions, always look for the broadest and most independent statement as the opener, and leave the most summarising or outcome oriented sentence for the end. Final Answer: The correct order is PSRQ, so the correct option is PSRQ.

Question 4

Rearrange the following parts of the sentence to form a coherent paragraph about celebrity rankings and sportspersons. P: Kohli, along with Deepika and Ranveer, has led the ascent of millennials to the top of the rankings. Q: For the first time, a f…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This rearrangement question concerns celebrity rankings, with references to Kohli, film stars Deepika and Ranveer, badminton star P. V. Sindhu and former captain Dhoni. The sentences mention who led the ascent of millennials, the first time a female sportsperson entered the top fifteen, Sindhu's entry at rank 15 and Dhoni's slip in ranking. We must arrange these statements so that the paragraph makes sense as a compact report on changes in the rankings. Given Data / Assumptions: P indicates that Kohli, Deepika and Ranveer have led the ascent of millennials to the top of the rankings. R specifies that this year P. V. Sindhu entered at rank 15. Q generalises that for the first time a female sportsperson has reached the top fifteen. S reports that Dhoni slipped from ninth place to thirteenth place. We assume the paragraph should begin with a broad statement about the rankings, then provide notable changes and finally conclude with another important change. Concept / Approach: For current affairs or ranking based paragraphs: Start with a summarising statement about the overall trend or headline (here, millennials led by Kohli at the top). Then add detailed examples of notable entries or changes, such as Sindhu's entry. Follow the example with its explanation or significance, for instance, that she is the first female sportsperson in the top fifteen. End with another distinctive change such as Dhoni's slip in ranking. We also note that Q, which refers to "for the first time", makes most sense after mentioning Sindhu's entry in R. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: P is a good opening sentence because it sets the context: millennials like Kohli, Deepika and Ranveer are at the top of the rankings. Step 2: R logically comes next as it introduces a new but related fact: this year P. V. Sindhu has entered the rankings at position 15. Step 3: Q should follow, because it explains the significance of the fact in R by stating that this is the first time a female sportsperson has made it to the top fifteen. Step 4: S then concludes the paragraph with another notable movement in the list, Dhoni's slip from ninth to thirteenth place. Step 5: The order PRQS thus tells a short, cohesive story about leaders, new entrants and changing positions in the rankings. Verification / Alternative check: Reading PRQS as a continuous paragraph, we see no pronoun confusion and the progression remains clear. In PSRQ, the fact about Sindhu appears after Dhoni's slip, and Q 'for the first time' is placed last, which makes the explanation of significance feel detached from the relevant example. QRSP starts abruptly with the fact "for the first time a female sportsperson..." without mentioning who that person is until later. RSQP would begin with "This year saw P. V. Sindhu..." and only later introduce the broader ranking context, which is less natural for a concise summary paragraph. Why Other Options Are Wrong: PSRQ: Splits the example of Sindhu and the explanation of its significance, and ends on a general statement instead of a concrete movement in ranking. QRSP: Refers to a female sportsperson entering the top fifteen before naming her, which is not ideal for clarity. RSQP: Starts with Sindhu's entry without giving the wider background of millennials leading the rankings. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes treat the sentence containing "for the first time" as a natural opener because it looks like a headline, but here it lacks specific detail until Sindhu is mentioned. Another common mistake is to focus only on familiar names like Dhoni and assume sentences about them should come first. In rearrangement tasks involving news style content, always prefer the sentence that clearly introduces the context or category (rankings, millennials, top positions) as the opener, and then add details and interpretations. Final Answer: The correct sequence is PRQS, so the correct option is PRQS.

Question 5

Rearrange the following parts of the sentence to form a coherent paragraph about tsunami waves and their behaviour. P: In addition, tsunamis move throughout the depth of the ocean and not just on its surface. Q: A tsunami wave is not much different …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This rearrangement question explains why tsunami waves are often unnoticed in the open ocean but become destructive near land. The four parts speak about tsunami height, tsunami motion through the ocean depth, how they go unnoticed and how they pile up when nearing land. The correct paragraph will start with a basic description, add additional scientific detail and then contrast behaviour in deep water versus near the shore. Given Data / Assumptions: P notes that tsunamis move throughout the depth of the ocean, not just on the surface. Q says that a tsunami wave is not much different in height from other ocean waves when in the open ocean. R concludes that this is why a tsunami generally goes unnoticed in the open ocean. S states that due to its long wavelength, a tsunami piles up when it approaches land. We assume the paragraph will explain the deep water behaviour first, then mention why it is not noticed and finally show what happens at the shoreline. Concept / Approach: For scientific explanatory passages: Introduce the phenomenon with its basic properties (height and motion). Explain consequences of those properties in one context (here, the open ocean). Then contrast with behaviour in another context (near land). Use logical connectors such as "That is why" and "But" to determine sequence. Here, "That is why" in R must follow a description in Q, and "But" in S signals a contrast with the earlier behaviour described. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: P can serve as the first sentence because it begins with "In addition" and states a distinctive property: tsunamis move through the full depth of the ocean. Although "In addition" hints at previous context in a longer passage, within this set it nicely introduces a specific physical characteristic. Step 2: Q follows as it adds another basic fact: in terms of height, tsunami waves in the open ocean are not much different from other waves. Together, P and Q give us two physical properties: movement through depth and modest height. Step 3: R naturally comes next because "That is why a tsunami generally goes unnoticed in the open ocean" explains the combined effect of the properties in P and Q. Step 4: S then introduces a contrast with "But", explaining that due to long wavelength, the same wave "piles up" on approaching land, which accounts for the observed destructive height near the shore. Step 5: The order PQRS therefore describes the phenomenon from properties to effects in deep water, then to contrasting behaviour near land. Verification / Alternative check: Reading PQRS, the paragraph first provides key properties (depthwise motion and modest height), then uses "That is why" to explain the lack of visibility in open water, and finally contrasts this with shoreline behaviour. Other sequences do not respect the connectors. RSPQ would begin with "That is why", which requires some previous explanation. QSRP would place S "But due to its wavelength..." immediately after Q without explaining why the wave is unnoticed first. SRPQ starts with a contrast "But" even though no earlier behaviour has yet been mentioned, making it logically incomplete. Why Other Options Are Wrong: RSPQ: Opens with a conclusion "That is why", which has nothing to refer back to in the given order. QSRP: Jumps from the wave's normal height to piling up near land, and only later tries to explain why it is unnoticed, which breaks the logical order. SRPQ: Begins with "But", signalling contrast, yet does not have any previous statement in the set to contrast with. Common Pitfalls: Students often ignore discourse markers such as "That is why" and "But", which are strong indicators of relative position in a paragraph. Another pitfall is to think any scientifically sounding sentence can start the paragraph even if it clearly depends on earlier information. In such questions, always align cause with effect and make sure explanations come after the facts they explain, not before. Final Answer: The correct order of the parts is PQRS, so the correct option is PQRS.

Question 6

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. Even after seventy years of achieving independence, democracy (in its true senses) was yet to come to India.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of correct English usage in a fixed expression: "in its true sense". The sentence states, "Even after seventy years of achieving independence, democracy (in its true senses) was yet to come to India." The phrase in brackets is grammatically awkward. We need to choose a more natural and idiomatic alternative from the options. Such questions are common in competitive exams to check familiarity with standard collocations and correct singular or plural forms of abstract nouns. Given Data / Assumptions: The base sentence talks about democracy not having fully arrived in India even after seventy years of independence. The bracketed phrase is "in its true senses". The options involve variations of "true" or "real" and singular or plural "sense/senses" plus a "No improvement" choice. We assume the intended idea is that democracy in India had not yet existed "in the true sense of the term". Concept / Approach: To solve improvement questions, we: Identify the standard expression in English used to convey the intended meaning. Check subject–verb agreement and singular–plural consistency. Reject options that sound unnatural in formal written English. Compare each option with the expression we know is idiomatic. In formal English, we usually say "in its true sense" or "in the true sense of the term", not "in its true senses". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the original bracketed phrase "in its true senses". The word "sense" in the abstract meaning of "real meaning" or "essence" is usually uncountable and occurs in the singular. Step 2: Option A, "in its true sense", is exactly the standard collocation and matches the idea of democracy in its genuine or fullest meaning. Step 3: Option B, "in its real sense", is grammatically acceptable but less common and slightly weaker in idiomatic force than "true sense". The exam typically expects the most standard phrase. Step 4: Option C, "in its real senses", repeats the incorrect pluralisation and is therefore not acceptable. Step 5: Option D, "No improvement", is incorrect because the original "in its true senses" is not idiomatic. Step 6: Therefore, "in its true sense" is the best and most natural choice. Verification / Alternative check: Read the full sentence with each option substituted: Even after seventy years of achieving independence, democracy in its true sense was yet to come to India. Even after seventy years of achieving independence, democracy in its real sense was yet to come to India. The first version feels more natural and is commonly used in newspapers and academic writing. The plural forms ("true senses", "real senses") sound odd because democracy is being considered in one essential meaning, not many separate senses. Thus, the singular "sense" is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: in its real sense: Grammatically fine, but slightly weaker and less idiomatic than "in its true sense"; exams usually prefer the most widely accepted expression. in its real senses: Incorrect because "senses" suggests multiple meanings here; the sentence is about one core meaning of democracy. No improvement: Wrong because the bracketed phrase clearly needs correction from "senses" to "sense". Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes think that using "real" instead of "true" sounds more modern, but they forget that many expressions in English are fixed collocations and sound most natural in one particular form. Another mistake is to ignore number agreement for abstract nouns. Although "sense" can be countable in some contexts ("the word has several senses"), in this idiom we refer to one overarching meaning and therefore use the singular. It is also important not to choose "No improvement" just because the sentence sounds roughly understandable; the goal is the most accurate and idiomatic version. Final Answer: The improved expression is in its true sense, so the correct option is "in its true sense".

Question 7

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. The "right to choice" of Aadhaar holders who do not want to link their accounts (may move up) for a decision.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks understanding of phrasal verbs used to talk about matters being taken for consideration or decision. The sentence says that the "right to choice" of Aadhaar holders who do not want to link their accounts "(may move up) for a decision." The phrase in brackets sounds unnatural. We must select a more appropriate verb phrase that fits formal legal or administrative language, such as matters "coming up" for decision in court or before an authority. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence talks about a legal or policy issue related to Aadhaar holders and linking accounts. The bracketed phrase is "may move up". The options are: may came up may come up may come ahead No improvement We assume the intended meaning is that the question of the right to choice may be considered or heard for decision at some point. Concept / Approach: To solve such improvement questions: Identify the correct tense and structure in the modal construction "may + base verb". Check which phrasal verb collocates naturally with "for a decision". Eliminate grammatically wrong forms such as using a past form after "may". Check if the phrase is commonly used in legal or formal contexts. The usual expression is "the matter may come up for a decision" or "the issue may come up for hearing". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: "may came up" in option A is grammatically wrong because "may" must be followed by the base form of the verb, not the past tense "came". Step 2: "may come up" in option B uses the correct structure: modal "may" plus base verb "come". Also, "come up for a decision" is a very common phrase in legal and administrative English. Step 3: "may come ahead" in option C is not idiomatic with "for a decision". We say matters "come up" or "come before" a court, not "come ahead". Step 4: "may move up" in the original bracketed phrase is not the standard collocation here; "move up" usually refers to shifting position in a queue or ranking, not being scheduled for decision. Step 5: Therefore, the best option is "may come up". Verification / Alternative check: Insert each option into the full sentence: The right to choice of Aadhaar holders who do not want to link their accounts may come up for a decision. This sounds natural and is exactly how courts or tribunals are referred to in news reports. By contrast, "may move up for a decision" feels awkward and unclear, and "may come ahead for a decision" is not a recognised expression. The "No improvement" choice fails because the original phrase is not idiomatic or precise. Why Other Options Are Wrong: may came up: wrong tense and structure; modals require base form. may come ahead: not the usual phrasal verb in this context; "come ahead for a decision" is not standard English. No improvement: incorrect because "may move up" does not clearly convey the idea of a matter being taken up for decision. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is not paying attention to the form of the verb after a modal. Learners may also generalise from everyday usage of "move up" to formal contexts even where it does not apply. Finally, many candidates choose "No improvement" when the sentence is roughly understandable, but exam questions are often about replacing such rough phrases with precise, idiomatic English. Always read the full sentence with each option to judge which one best expresses the intended formal meaning. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is may come up, so the right option is "may come up".

Question 8

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. They will not be able to enjoy these benefits (up and until) they part with their personal biometric information to the government.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests familiarity with the correct correlative expression "unless and until". The sentence says, "They will not be able to enjoy these benefits (up and until) they part with their personal biometric information to the government." The bracketed phrase is non standard. We must choose a more idiomatic way to express the condition under which they will be able to enjoy the benefits. Given Data / Assumptions: The basic structure is "They will not be able to enjoy these benefits ... they part with their personal biometric information". The bracketed phrase "up and until" is not the standard form. Options include: till and until unless and until uptil and until No improvement The intended meaning is that they will get the benefits only if or only when they part with their biometric information. Concept / Approach: We should: Identify whether the sentence expresses a pure time limit or a conditional restriction. Recall the standard compound conjunction used in such contexts. Reject spellings or combinations that are incorrect in formal English. The phrase "unless and until" is widely used to convey a strong conditional requirement that must be satisfied before something can happen. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The meaning of the sentence is conditional: they will not enjoy the benefits unless they share their biometric information. It is not merely saying "up to a point in time". Step 2: Option B "unless and until" captures both the conditional and temporal aspect and is the standard expression in legal and formal writing. Step 3: Option A "till and until" is redundant because "till" and "until" convey similar temporal meaning and do not express the conditional sense clearly. Step 4: Option C "uptil and until" is wrong in spelling ("uptil" is not standard) and again unnecessary duplication. Step 5: The original "up and until" is not idiomatic, so "No improvement" cannot be the answer. Step 6: Therefore, "unless and until" is the correct choice. Verification / Alternative check: Put each option into the sentence: They will not be able to enjoy these benefits unless and until they part with their personal biometric information to the government. This version clearly conveys the meaning that sharing biometric data is a necessary condition for receiving benefits. "Till and until" and similar combinations sound clumsy and do not capture the conditional nature so effectively. "Up and until" is simply incorrect usage and is not found in standard formal writing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: till and until: Repetitive and does not emphasise the conditional requirement; both words have similar time related meaning. uptil and until: Contains a non standard spelling ("uptil") and still does not add any extra clarity over "until". No improvement: Rejects the need to correct a clearly awkward and non idiomatic phrase. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse "till", "until" and "unless" and create hybrid expressions that are not accepted in standard English. Another common mistake is to assume that if a phrase is heard in casual speech it must be correct in written exams. However, examinations test the most standard and precise usage, and "unless and until" is the recognised pair for describing a strict condition that must be met before a result can follow. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is unless and until, so the right option is "unless and until".

Question 9

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. (What is worser) is that there is practically no room for improved relations as long as Mr Gupta keeps the issue floating.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on the correct comparative form of the adjective "bad". The sentence reads, "(What is worser) is that there is practically no room for improved relations as long as Mr Gupta keeps the issue floating." The phrase in brackets contains a non standard form. We must select the grammatically correct expression that correctly introduces a worse aspect of the situation. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence is pointing out an even more serious aspect of an already bad situation. The bracketed phrase is "What is worser". The options include: What is worsen What is worse What is worsing No improvement We assume the intended standard phrase is "What is worse". Concept / Approach: We recall the correct comparative and superlative forms of "bad": bad – worse – worst The word "worser" is non standard and not used in modern formal English. Similarly, "worsen" is a verb meaning "to become worse", and "worsing" is not a standard form. We therefore check which option uses the correct comparative adjective in the right structure. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the sentence is introducing an additional and more serious problem, so it needs the comparative adjective "worse". Step 2: Option B, "What is worse", is the standard expression used to introduce an additional negative point. Step 3: Option A, "What is worsen", incorrectly uses the verb "worsen" in place of an adjective, which does not fit this structure. Step 4: Option C, "What is worsing", is not a valid English form at all and must be rejected. Step 5: "What is worser" in the original sentence is also incorrect, because "worser" is not accepted in standard modern English. Therefore, "No improvement" is wrong. Step 6: The only correct and idiomatic option is "What is worse". Verification / Alternative check: Insert the correct phrase into the sentence: What is worse is that there is practically no room for improved relations as long as Mr Gupta keeps the issue floating. This sounds natural and matches common written and spoken usage. It clearly indicates that the point given in the clause is even more serious than an earlier issue being discussed. Any of the other forms would either be ungrammatical or non standard. Why Other Options Are Wrong: What is worsen: Uses the verb "worsen" wrongly in a slot where an adjective is required. What is worsing: Not a valid word in English. No improvement: Rejects the need to correct "worser", which is incorrect in standard English. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse archaic or dialectal forms with standard ones. "Worser" may occasionally appear in older literature, but it is not acceptable in modern exam level writing. Another pitfall is to mix up the verb "worsen" with the adjective "worse". Remember that "worse" compares two negative states, while "worsen" describes a change in state, as in "The situation may worsen". Final Answer: The correct improved expression is What is worse, so the correct option is "What is worse".

Question 10

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. It is one thing for adultery to get you a divorce and (quite some other) for it to lead you to incarceration.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence examines a legal or moral distinction between adultery as a ground for divorce and as a ground for imprisonment. The bracketed phrase "(quite some other)" is awkward and non idiomatic. We must choose the correct fixed expression that contrasts two situations: "It is one thing ... and quite another ...". Such idiomatic structures are often tested in English improvement questions. Given Data / Assumptions: The structure "It is one thing ... and ..." normally takes "quite another" in the second part. The bracketed expression "quite some other" is non standard. The options are: quite another quite any other quite every other No improvement The intended meaning is that getting a divorce is one type of consequence, while going to prison is a completely different and more serious consequence. Concept / Approach: We rely on knowledge of idioms and fixed patterns: The pattern "It is one thing to do X and (quite) another (to do Y)" is standard English. Words like "any other" or "every other" do not fit this idiomatic construction. A non standard variant such as "quite some other" should be rejected even if it seems roughly meaningful. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise the structure "It is one thing ... and ..." and recall that the correct completion is "quite another". Step 2: Option A "quite another" exactly matches this pattern: "It is one thing for adultery to get you a divorce and quite another for it to lead you to incarceration." Step 3: Option B "quite any other" is ungrammatical in this pattern and does not form a known idiom. Step 4: Option C "quite every other" is also wrong; it suggests comparison with every other thing rather than one specific contrasting situation. Step 5: The original "quite some other" is not idiomatic, so "No improvement" is not acceptable. Step 6: Therefore, the best improvement is "quite another". Verification / Alternative check: Insert the correct option into the full sentence: It is one thing for adultery to get you a divorce and quite another for it to lead you to incarceration. This is a clear, natural sentence that emphasises the difference between civil consequences (divorce) and criminal consequences (imprisonment). All other options sound forced or incorrect and would not appear in formal writing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: quite any other: Does not fit the structure "It is one thing ... and quite any other ...", which is not an English idiom. quite every other: Suggests something like "every other thing", which is not what the sentence intends. No improvement: Retains the non idiomatic phrase "quite some other". Common Pitfalls: Many candidates fail to recognise that some structures in English are fixed collocations and are not flexible. They may try to improvise with "any other" or "some other" without realising that these break the idiom. It is useful to learn common patterns such as "on the one hand ... on the other hand" and "It is one thing ... and quite another" because they appear frequently in exams and formal writing. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is quite another, so the correct option is "quite another".

Question 11

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. Perhaps a greater challenge they face is (improving the wounds of the civil war); Iraq is a divided country today.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence discusses challenges faced in post war Iraq. It says, "Perhaps a greater challenge they face is (improving the wounds of the civil war); Iraq is a divided country today." The bracketed phrase is unidiomatic, because "wounds" are not "improved". Instead, "wounds" must be "healed". We must choose the option that best captures the metaphor of a country recovering from the damage of civil war. Given Data / Assumptions: The phrase "wounds of the civil war" is metaphorical but based on the literal idea that wounds need to be healed. The options are: counting the effects of the civil war curing the aftermaths of the civil war healing the wounds of the civil war No improvement The aim is to express the difficulty of repairing the damage done by civil war in societal and psychological terms. Concept / Approach: We focus on collocation and metaphor: "wounds" are collocated with "healing", whether literal or metaphorical. "improving the wounds" is not used in English; we speak of improving conditions, not wounds. "curing the aftermaths" is also non standard, because "aftermath" is normally singular or uncountable, and "cure" is usually for disease. "counting the effects" has a different meaning; it refers to listing consequences rather than dealing with them. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise the basic metaphor: a nation injured by civil war is said to have "wounds" that need healing. Step 2: "healing the wounds of the civil war" in option C perfectly matches this metaphor and is widely used in journalism and political commentary. Step 3: Option A "counting the effects of the civil war" changes the meaning; it suggests listing or calculating effects rather than overcoming them. Step 4: Option B "curing the aftermaths of the civil war" is awkward, since "aftermath" is typically singular and not something we "cure". Step 5: The original phrase "improving the wounds of the civil war" is incorrect, so "No improvement" cannot be correct. Step 6: Therefore, option C "healing the wounds of the civil war" is the best improvement. Verification / Alternative check: Insert option C into the sentence: Perhaps a greater challenge they face is healing the wounds of the civil war; Iraq is a divided country today. This clearly communicates that beyond immediate political or military issues, the society must recover from deep psychological and communal damage. The other options either misrepresent the metaphor or sound ungrammatical. Why Other Options Are Wrong: counting the effects of the civil war: Changes the meaning; it suggests merely observing or listing, not repairing the damage. curing the aftermaths of the civil war: Uses the countable "aftermaths" unnaturally and misuses "curing". No improvement: Retains an incorrect collocation "improving the wounds". Common Pitfalls: A typical error is focusing only on single word replacements instead of checking how words naturally go together in English. Learners may know "improve" and "wound" separately but not realise that these two do not form a standard phrase. Being aware of common metaphors such as "healing divisions", "healing wounds", and "rebuilding trust" helps in answering such questions quickly and accurately. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is healing the wounds of the civil war, so the correct option is "healing the wounds of the civil war".

Question 12

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. What if the government itself fails (to tackle that divisions) and lets parts of the country drift into anarchy again?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence refers to divisions in a country that the government may fail to handle, resulting in anarchy. The bracketed phrase "(to tackle that divisions)" is grammatically incorrect and must be improved. The key issues are subject verb form, demonstrative adjective ("that" versus "these") and singular versus plural noun ("division" versus "divisions"). Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence talks about multiple divisions within the country, so a plural noun is expected. We refer to divisions that have been described earlier in the passage, implying proximity and relevance, which usually take "these". The options are: to tackled that divisions to tackle these divisions to tackle these division No improvement The infinitive form after "fails" must be "to tackle", not "to tackled". Concept / Approach: We check three things: Correct infinitive form after "fails". Agreement between demonstrative ("this/that/these/those") and the number of the noun. Pluralisation of the noun to match the idea of several divisions. We also choose the phrase that best fits typical usage in political commentary: "these divisions" is the standard expression when referring back to divisions already mentioned in the discussion. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The correct infinitive is "to tackle". "To tackled" in option A is wrong because "tackled" is a past tense or past participle form. Step 2: The noun should be plural "divisions" because the sentence clearly refers to multiple lines of division in society. Step 3: "these" is preferred over "that" when referring to divisions that are immediate and central to the current discussion. Therefore, "these divisions" is more appropriate than "that divisions". Step 4: Option B "to tackle these divisions" satisfies all three requirements: correct infinitive, correct demonstrative and correct plural noun. Step 5: Option C "to tackle these division" fails on number agreement; "division" should be "divisions". Step 6: The original "to tackle that divisions" is wrong in both demonstrative choice and number, so "No improvement" cannot be correct. Verification / Alternative check: Insert option B into the sentence: What if the government itself fails to tackle these divisions and lets parts of the country drift into anarchy again? This reads smoothly and matches standard editorial language. The phrase clearly conveys that there are several serious divisions, and the government might not be able to deal with them effectively. Why Other Options Are Wrong: to tackled that divisions: Wrong verb form and wrong combination of demonstrative and plural noun. to tackle these division: Correct verb form and demonstrative, but incorrect singular noun. No improvement: Retains a grammatically incorrect phrase. Common Pitfalls: Examinees may overlook small words like "that" and "these", but these demonstratives strongly affect correctness and nuance. Another common error is forgetting that verbs after "to" in such structures must be in base form. In English exams, these small grammar details often decide the correct answer, so it is important to check agreement and verb form carefully rather than relying only on general meaning. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is to tackle these divisions, so the correct option is "to tackle these divisions".

Question 13

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. With a population of over one billion, India is the second (most popular countries) in the world.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence compares India with other countries on the basis of population size. It reads, "With a population of over one billion, India is the second (most popular countries) in the world." The bracketed phrase is incorrect because "popular" refers to likability, while the context clearly demands a word about population. We must choose the correct adjective and structure to express that India has the second highest population in the world. Given Data / Assumptions: India's population is over one billion. The sentence claims that India is the second something in the world. The bracketed phrase "most popular countries" is clearly illogical. Options include: more popular country most populous country much popular countries No improvement The intended comparison is about number of people, not popularity. Concept / Approach: We must: Choose between "popular" (liked, well known) and "populous" (having a large population). Ensure singular or plural form agrees with "India is the second..." Ensure that the superlative "most" is used correctly in relation to "second". In standard English, we say "second most populous country" when ranking by population. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Replace "popular" with "populous", because we are talking about the size of the population, not fame or likability. Step 2: The structure should be "the second most populous country in the world". The noun "country" must be singular to match "India is the second ... country". Step 3: Option B "most populous country" gives precisely the correct adjective and noun in singular form. Step 4: Option A "more popular country" is wrong in both adjective choice ("popular") and comparative structure; "second more popular country" is not standard English. Step 5: Option C "much popular countries" is ungrammatical and uses the wrong adjective and number. Step 6: "No improvement" is wrong because the original phrase uses "popular countries", which is clearly incorrect in context. Verification / Alternative check: Insert option B into the full sentence: With a population of over one billion, India is the second most populous country in the world. This matches the well known factual statement and uses correct comparative ranking language. It is both grammatically and semantically accurate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: more popular country: "Popular" refers to being liked, not population; "more popular" also does not collocate with "second" in this way. much popular countries: Incorrect combination of "much" with "popular" and wrong plural "countries". No improvement: Retains "most popular countries", which conflicts with the idea of population size. Common Pitfalls: Some learners misread "popular" as "populous" and overlook the error. Others may not notice that "countries" is plural while India is a single country. In grammar and usage questions, always check that adjectives precisely match the intended meaning and that singular or plural forms are correct. Knowing pairs like "industrial" versus "industrious" and "popular" versus "populous" is very important in competitive exams. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is most populous country, so the correct option is "most populous country".

Question 14

In the following sentence, choose the alternative that best improves the bracketed part. Happy is the man (who acquired) the habit of reading when he is young.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence expresses a general truth about happiness and the habit of reading. It reads, "Happy is the man (who acquired) the habit of reading when he is young." The tense and aspect of the clause in brackets must agree with the universal, timeless nature of the statement. We must choose a form that properly matches the simple present "is" and the general condition described. Given Data / Assumptions: The main clause uses the simple present: "Happy is the man". The subordinate clause describes which man we are talking about. Options include: who acquires which was acquiring who acquire No improvement The sentence is meant as a general statement about any man, not about a specific past event. Concept / Approach: We remember that: General truths typically use the simple present tense. Relative pronoun "who" for persons is followed by a verb that agrees in number with "man". "who acquired" in the original uses simple past, which suggests a completed action in a specific context rather than a general rule. Therefore, the correct choice should use the simple present form "acquires". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The main clause "Happy is the man" is in simple present, expressing a general principle. Step 2: To maintain consistency and the idea of a general truth, the relative clause should also use simple present: "who acquires the habit of reading when he is young." Step 3: Option A "who acquires" gives the correct simple present verb form that agrees with the singular subject "man". Step 4: Option B "which was acquiring" is wrong because it uses "which" for things, not people, and the progressive past tense "was acquiring", which does not fit a general truth. Step 5: Option C "who acquire" is incorrect because the verb does not agree with the singular "man"; it would be correct only with a plural subject like "men who acquire". Step 6: The original "who acquired" is grammatically possible but does not express a timeless truth as clearly as "who acquires", so "No improvement" is not the best answer. Verification / Alternative check: Insert option A into the sentence: Happy is the man who acquires the habit of reading when he is young. This version sounds like a proverb or general life lesson. It does not limit the statement to any specific man in the past and matches the present tense "is" and "is young". The structure is classical and widely used in exam English. Why Other Options Are Wrong: which was acquiring: Wrong relative pronoun and tense; it also uses a continuous aspect unsuitable here. who acquire: Incorrect subject verb agreement with singular "man". No improvement: Retains a past tense that weakens the universal flavour of the statement. Common Pitfalls: Many learners focus only on whether a clause "sounds okay" and forget to align tense with the type of statement being made. In proverbs and general truths, simple present is the norm. Another common problem is ignoring subject verb agreement in relative clauses. Always check what the relative pronoun refers to and choose the verb form accordingly. Final Answer: The correct improved phrase is who acquires, so the right option is "who acquires".

Question 15

In the following sentence, the bracketed part is grammatically incorrect. Choose the option that best improves the sentence in terms of standard written English: She is expected to be a candidate of continuity and is also expected to take a stand fo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question from English grammar tests how well you can recognise correct adjective forms and collocations in a formal context. The sentence talks about a candidate who is expected to support a particular kind of economic change. Your task is to choose the phrase that fits naturally and is grammatically correct in standard English, especially in the context of economics and public policy language. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: She is expected to be a candidate of continuity and is also expected to take a stand for "radically economic transformation". The bracketed segment "radically economic transformation" is to be improved. The intended meaning is that she supports a strong or fundamental transformation of the economy. We assume the register is formal, as found in editorials, essays, or exam passages. Concept / Approach: The key concept here is how adjectives qualify nouns. In English, "economic" is the standard adjective that describes something related to the economy, while "radical" is an adjective that means fundamental or far reaching. "Radically" is the adverb form of "radical" and normally modifies verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs, not the noun "transformation" directly. Therefore, we look for a structure where two adjectives correctly modify the noun "transformation". Idiomatic political and economic writing frequently uses the phrase "radical economic transformation" to describe deep structural changes in the economic system. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the head noun in the bracketed phrase. The core noun is "transformation".Step 2: Decide which words must correctly describe this noun. We need words that express type and intensity of change: "economic" and "radical".Step 3: Check each option for correct part of speech and collocation with "transformation".Step 4: Notice that "radical economic transformation" uses two adjectives in a natural order: "radical" (degree) and "economic" (type), followed by the noun "transformation".Step 5: Confirm that the resulting phrase is both grammatically correct and commonly used in economics and political commentary. Verification / Alternative check: Read the full sentence with each option. "She is expected to take a stand for radical economic transformation" sounds fluent and natural, and clearly suggests that she supports fundamental changes in the economy. When you read the other options aloud, they sound awkward or incorrect, which confirms that only one option works well in educated written English. This is a good way to double check grammar questions: always test them in full context and listen for how natural the phrase feels. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: "radical economics transformation" uses "economics", which is the name of the subject or discipline, not the correct adjective form. The natural adjective is "economic", so this combination is not idiomatic. Option C: "radically economics transformation" uses "radically" as an adverb and "economics" as a noun, then "transformation" as another noun. The structure is confused and ungrammatical for this context. Option D: "No improvement" would keep the original "radically economic transformation", which misuses the adverb "radically" directly before a noun phrase and sounds unnatural. Common Pitfalls: Many learners are tempted to keep the adverb "radically" because they associate strong change with "radically different", but that pattern normally uses an adjective after "radically". When the head is a noun like "transformation", the preferred pattern is "radical transformation". Another pitfall is confusing "economics" (the subject) with "economic" (the adjective). Exams often hide small errors inside long sentences, so you must train yourself to zoom in on the grammatical core around the bracketed portion and ignore distractions such as extra clauses or political vocabulary. Final Answer: The best and grammatically correct improvement of the bracketed phrase is radical economic transformation.

Question 16

In the following sentence, the bracketed part is grammatically incorrect. Choose the option that best improves the sentence in terms of tense and meaning: With its overall popularity sliding, (the party will have been working hard) to bring in the n…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of future obligation and correct adverb placement in English. The sentence describes a political party whose popularity is going down. In such a context, the writer wants to say that the party needs to put in a lot of effort in the future to bring in a new generation of leaders. You must select the option that expresses this idea in natural and grammatically accurate English. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: With its overall popularity sliding, (the party will have been working hard) to bring in the next generation of leaders. The popularity is already sliding at present. The party is expected to exert effort in the future to improve the situation. The bracketed part describes an obligation or necessity, not a completed future action. Concept / Approach: The structure "will have been working" is a future perfect progressive tense used to highlight the duration of an action before a specific future point. In this sentence, however, the focus is on what the party needs to do, rather than on how long it will have been doing it. Therefore, a simple modal of obligation "will have to" plus the base verb "work" is more appropriate. You must also pay attention to the position of the adverb "hard". In English, "work hard" is a common collocation in which "hard" directly follows the verb. Expressions like "hardly work" mean "almost not work", which is the opposite of what is intended here. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the meaning: the party needs to make a strong effort in the future because its popularity is sliding.Step 2: Recognise that this meaning is best expressed by "will have to work", which shows future necessity.Step 3: Check the collocation: we say "work hard" when we want to show strong effort, not "hardly work".Step 4: Test option A in the full sentence: "With its overall popularity sliding, the party will have to work hard to bring in the next generation of leaders."Step 5: Observe that this version is clear, natural, and matches formal written English, so option A is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Read the sentence with each option and focus on meaning. Options that suggest the party will scarcely work are clearly wrong because they contradict the idea that extra effort is required. Similarly, a form that suggests a completed ongoing action before a specific date is too complex and does not fit the sense of obligation the writer wants to express. The clarity and simplicity of "will have to work hard" confirm that option A is the correct improvement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B: "the party will have to hardly work" implies that the party will almost not work at all, which is opposite of the intended meaning. Option C: "the party will have to work hardly" is not idiomatic; native speakers do not use "work hardly" in this way, and the adverb is placed in an unnatural position. Option D: "No improvement" would keep "will have been working hard", which is unnecessarily complex and does not correctly focus on obligation. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse adverbs "hard" and "hardly". "Hard" means "with great effort", while "hardly" means "almost not at all". This difference in meaning is crucial in exam questions. Another pitfall is using advanced tenses like the future perfect progressive where a simple modal structure is more appropriate. Exam setters deliberately insert complicated tenses to distract you, so always check whether the tense truly matches the intended meaning before choosing it. Final Answer: The correct improvement of the bracketed part is the party will have to work hard.

Question 17

In the following sentence, the bracketed part is grammatically incorrect. Choose the option that best improves the sentence: The state has (declined negotiate) any more trade-offs on this proposal or accept calls for stringent transparency requireme…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on verb patterns after the verb "decline" in a formal, political context. The sentence discusses how a state reacts to proposed trade-offs and transparency demands. Your job is to choose the grammatically correct and natural structure in English that follows the verb "has declined" when it is used to reject a course of action. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: The state has (declined negotiate) any more trade-offs on this proposal or accept calls for stringent transparency requirements. The meaning is that the state refuses to negotiate further or to accept certain calls. We are working in a formal political or administrative register. The bracketed part must fit smoothly with the rest of the sentence. Concept / Approach: In English, "decline" when used as a verb of refusal can be followed either by a direct object ("declined the invitation") or by "to" plus the base verb ("declined to attend"). Here, we want a verb phrase "negotiate", not a noun, so the correct structure is "declined to negotiate". This uses the infinitive form after "declined". Forms like "declined to negotiation" mix preposition and noun in an awkward way, and "declined to negotiating" introduces a gerund where the standard infinitive is preferred in formal writing. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main verb: "has declined". It expresses refusal.Step 2: Decide whether "negotiate" should appear as a verb or as a noun. From the context, "negotiate" clearly functions as an action, so a verb is required.Step 3: Recall that in such contexts the pattern is "declined to + base verb".Step 4: Check each option and select the one that gives "declined to negotiate", which follows the correct verb pattern.Step 5: Read the full sentence: "The state has declined to negotiate any more trade-offs on this proposal or accept calls for stringent transparency requirements." The meaning is clear and the grammar is accurate. Verification / Alternative check: Substitute each option into the sentence and read aloud. When you say "declined to negotiate", the sentence flows well and sounds like standard newspaper or policy language. In contrast, structures such as "declined to negotiation" or "declined to negotiating" sound heavy or wrong to a trained ear. The "No improvement" option clearly fails because "declined negotiate" is missing the necessary preposition "to", making the phrase ungrammatical. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: "declined to negotiation" incorrectly uses the noun "negotiation" where the verb "negotiate" is required; the phrase is not idiomatic in this context. Option C: "declined to negotiating" uses a gerund; while gerund constructions exist in English, here the standard and natural pattern is "declined to negotiate". The gerund form makes the sentence sound awkward. Option D: "No improvement" would leave "declined negotiate", which lacks the necessary "to" and is grammatically incomplete. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake in exam questions is overlooking small linking words like "to" that change a raw base verb into an infinitive. Learners often get confused between "to" as a preposition and "to" as part of an infinitive. Another pitfall is treating every "-ing" form as acceptable after verbs of refusal or desire, when many of these verbs actually prefer the infinitive. To handle such questions reliably, always recall the standard collocations you often read in newspapers and formal documents, such as "refused to comment", "declined to participate", or "agreed to cooperate". Final Answer: The correct and natural improvement is declined to negotiate.

Question 18

In the following sentence, the bracketed part is grammatically incorrect. Choose the option that best improves the sentence: The response to that challenge is to make the gains of globalization more visible and its transient downsides, (politically …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence comes from a formal discussion about globalization and its effects. The phrase in brackets describes how the political impact of the downsides of globalization should be reduced. The question asks you to choose the grammatically correct adjective form that fits naturally with "downsides". It tests your understanding of adjective formation and how to connect an abstract noun like "downsides" with the idea of pain or discomfort in a political sense. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: The response to that challenge is to make the gains of globalization more visible and its transient downsides, "politically less paining". The phrase refers to "downsides", which are plural and abstract. The context is about reducing the political cost or discomfort caused by those downsides. We are working in a formal, analytical style often found in editorials or policy essays. Concept / Approach: In English, adjectives that describe something causing pain often take the form "painful". We say "a painful experience", "a painful injury", or "politically painful decisions". The word "paining" is not normally used as an adjective before a noun, and "pain" itself is a noun. Therefore, "less painful" is the correct adjective phrase. When combined with the adverb "politically", the natural collocation is "politically less painful", which means less damaging or less hurtful in political terms. The adjective must agree in form and position with the noun "downsides". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify what is being described: the "transient downsides" of globalization.Step 2: Decide which part of speech is needed. We need an adjective phrase that tells us what these downsides are like in political terms.Step 3: Recall common collocations: "politically painful reforms", "politically painful measures", and by extension, "politically less painful downsides".Step 4: Evaluate each option and see which uses a correct adjective form: "painful" is the standard adjective derived from "pain".Step 5: Insert option B into the sentence: "its transient downsides, politically less painful", which reads naturally and clearly. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the full sentence with each option helps you check natural usage. Only "politically less painful" matches the style of educated writing about economics and politics. It expresses that the political discomfort created by the downsides should be reduced, which matches the intent of the original clause. The other options sound either awkward or grammatically wrong, so they can be eliminated by ear and by rule. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: "politically less pained" suggests the downsides themselves feel pain, which is illogical. "Pained" is usually used for persons, not abstract phenomena. Option C: "politically less pain" uses the noun "pain" instead of an adjective. The sentence then lacks a proper modifier for "downsides". Option D: "No improvement" would keep "politically less paining", which is not standard English and is ungrammatical before a noun in this way. Common Pitfalls: One common mistake is to convert verbs or nouns directly into modifiers without checking whether an established adjective form already exists. English vocabulary often has conventional adjective forms like "painful", "harmful", and "useful". Using nonstandard alternatives such as "paining" can make writing sound incorrect. In exam questions, always look for familiar collocations that you have seen in newspapers, textbooks, and formal articles; they guide you to the correct choice among confusing similar words. Final Answer: The correct improvement is politically less painful.

Question 19

In the following sentence, the bracketed part is grammatically incorrect. Choose the option that best improves the sentence: The speed with which (these hate crime videos travelling) on social media frames a difficult challenge for law enforcement a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines subject verb agreement and correct tense in a sentence about social media and law enforcement. The sentence describes how fast hate crime videos move across social media platforms and how that creates challenges. You are asked to choose the grammatically correct and logically appropriate form of the bracketed part so that the sentence reads naturally in standard English. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: The speed with which (these hate crime videos travelling) on social media frames a difficult challenge for law enforcement authorities. The subject within the bracket is plural: "videos". The sentence describes an ongoing, typical situation, not a single completed event in the past. The verb phrase must agree with "videos" and with the idea of something that happens repeatedly in the present. Concept / Approach: For habitual or general truths, English normally uses the simple present tense. We say "videos travel quickly on social media" to describe a general pattern. The structure "these hate crime videos travel" is therefore the natural choice. The word "these" agrees with the plural noun "videos". The form "travelling" in the original is participial and does not fit into the sentence structure as a finite verb. In the options, incorrect determiners ("this") or incorrect tenses ("travelled") disturb the meaning and the grammar. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify what the clause needs: a finite verb that shows what the videos do.Step 2: Recognise that the situation described is general and ongoing, so the simple present tense is appropriate.Step 3: Match the determiner with the plural noun: "these videos" is correct, "this videos" is wrong.Step 4: Insert option A: "The speed with which these hate crime videos travel on social media frames a difficult challenge for law enforcement authorities."Step 5: Check for both grammatical correctness and clarity; option A satisfies both conditions. Verification / Alternative check: Read the sentence aloud using each option. With option A, the sentence flows smoothly and accurately reflects what we see in reality: hate crime videos move quickly online and that creates enforcement issues. Option B immediately sounds wrong because "this videos" breaks determiner noun agreement. Option C, using "travelled", sounds like it refers to a one time situation in the past rather than an ongoing challenge. "No improvement" is not acceptable because the original phrase "videos travelling" has no finite verb and leaves the clause incomplete. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B: "this hate crime videos travel" uses the singular determiner "this" with the plural noun "videos", which is grammatically incorrect. Option C: "these hate crime videos travelled" shifts the idea into the past, which does not match the idea of a continuing challenge described in the rest of the sentence. Option D: "No improvement" leaves an unfinished verbal structure in place. The participle "travelling" cannot function as the main finite verb in this clause. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overlook agreement between determiners and nouns because their attention is fixed on the main verb. Another common confusion is between present simple and past simple. When a sentence speaks about a current pattern that creates an ongoing problem, the simple present tense is preferred. To avoid such pitfalls, always identify the time reference in the sentence (habitual, present, or past) and check that all the grammatical elements line up with that reference. Final Answer: The correct improvement of the bracketed part is these hate crime videos travel.

Question 20

In the following sentence, the bracketed part is grammatically incorrect. Choose the option that best improves the sentence: Not only do they heighten anxieties among the (targeted groups rather also they) risk giving the unacceptable a perverse acc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question deals with correlative conjunctions, specifically the pairing of "not only" and "but also". The sentence describes negative effects: certain actions both increase anxiety and risk normalising the unacceptable. You must choose the phrase that correctly completes the "not only ... but also ..." structure and produces a smooth, balanced sentence. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: Not only do they heighten anxieties among the (targeted groups rather also they) risk giving the unacceptable a perverse acceptability. The earlier part of the sentence uses "Not only do they heighten anxieties ...". The second part must show an additional, parallel action: "they risk giving the unacceptable a perverse acceptability". The phrase inside brackets must link these two parts in a grammatically correct and parallel way. Concept / Approach: In English, "not only" must be followed by "but also" to complete the correlative pair. The structure is often: "Not only do they X, but they also Y" or "Not only X but also Y". Any deviation from this pattern tends to sound wrong or clumsy. Therefore, we look for an option that contains "but also" and preserves grammatical agreement with the rest of the sentence. The plural noun "groups" is correct because "they" heighten anxieties among multiple groups. The phrase must fit smoothly between "among the" and "risk giving". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the correlative conjunction at the beginning of the sentence: "Not only".Step 2: Recall that the standard pair is "not only ... but also ...".Step 3: Look for an option that contains "but also" in a grammatically correct position.Step 4: Evaluate option C: "targeted groups but also they". Now the sentence reads: "Not only do they heighten anxieties among the targeted groups but also they risk giving the unacceptable a perverse acceptability."Step 5: Confirm that this structure respects the parallelism: they do one thing (heighten anxieties) and they also do another thing (risk giving acceptability). Verification / Alternative check: Read the entire sentence using option C. It now follows a familiar and acceptable pattern in academic and editorial writing. Even though we could make minor stylistic improvements such as moving "also" ("but they also risk"), exam questions focus on grammatical correctness rather than style perfection. Options that use "rather also" or "then also" are not recognised correlative conjunctions, so they should be rejected. The "No improvement" choice keeps a visibly problematic phrase and therefore cannot be correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A: "targeted group then also they" uses singular "group" and the construction "then also", which is not a standard correlative conjunction. The sentence becomes grammatically shaky. Option B: "targeted groups even also they" includes "even also", which is redundant and unidiomatic. The phrase does not properly complete "not only". Option D: "No improvement" would retain "targeted groups rather also they", which is clearly incorrect; "rather also" is not an acceptable pairing with "not only". Common Pitfalls: Exams often test correlative conjunctions by slightly distorting the second part, hoping that candidates will focus on the meaning and miss the structural error. A key strategy is to identify the first half of the pair and mentally supply the correct second half; for example, "either ... or", "neither ... nor", and "not only ... but also". Then compare that mental template with the options. Another pitfall is ignoring number agreement such as "groups" versus "group". Always check both structure and number when improving sentences. Final Answer: The correct improvement is targeted groups but also they.

English Questions