Question 1

In the following passage about restorative justice, select the correct word for the blank: Restorative justice is __________ from mediation though it involves meetings and dialogues to fix responsibility for wrongdoing and to find a solution accepta…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question is based on a reading comprehension passage about restorative justice. Cloze type questions in passages test both vocabulary and the ability to understand subtle differences in meaning between similar words. Here, the focus is on selecting a word that correctly describes how restorative justice compares to mediation, even though both involve meetings and dialogue.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "Restorative justice is __________ from mediation though it involves meetings and dialogues to fix responsibility for wrongdoing and to find a solution acceptable to all three parties."
The blank should highlight the idea that restorative justice is different from mediation.
The options are "clear", "distinct", "recognisable", and "specific".
The passage describes restorative justice as having its own special features.

Concept / Approach:

The word "distinct" means clearly different or separate in nature, even if there are some similarities.
"Clear from" is not a usual pattern in this context, and "clear" does not directly convey difference between two processes.
"Recognisable" means capable of being identified, but it does not express contrast with mediation.
"Specific" means particular or detailed, again not directly focusing on distinction between two systems.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider the overall idea of the passage. It explains that restorative justice may appear similar to mediation but is in fact a separate approach.
Step 2: Evaluate option a, "clear". The expression "is clear from mediation" is not idiomatic; we would more likely say "is clearly different from". So this choice is not appropriate.
Step 3: Evaluate option b, "distinct". The phrase "is distinct from" is very common when we say one thing is different from another in an important way. It fits both grammatically and semantically.
Step 4: Evaluate option c, "recognisable". Saying "is recognisable from mediation" does not make sense; it fails to show difference between two processes.
Step 5: Evaluate option d, "specific". While we can say "has specific features", the structure "is specific from mediation" is not correct, and it still does not emphasise contrast.
Step 6: Conclude that "distinct" is the only word that gives the correct phrase and meaning, so option b is correct.
Verification / Alternative check:
Phrases such as "distinct from", "distinct in nature", and "distinct approach" are common in academic and legal writing.
In discussions of legal procedures, authors often say "restorative justice is distinct from traditional punishment" or "distinct from mediation".
This confirms that "distinct from" is a natural and precise collocation in this context.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "clear from mediation" does not convey the idea that restorative justice is a different process.
Option c is wrong because "recognisable from mediation" is not a standard expression and does not show contrast.
Option d is wrong because "specific from mediation" is ungrammatical and fails to indicate that restorative justice and mediation differ as systems.
Common Pitfalls:
Learners may focus only on the dictionary meanings of the words and ignore the way they combine with prepositions like "from".
Another common issue is choosing a word that looks academic or formal, such as "specific", without checking if it actually fits the sentence pattern.
The best method is to consider both meaning and the usual collocation, making "distinct from" the clear choice.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: distinct.

Question 2

In the passage on restorative justice, fill in the blank with the most suitable word: Restorative justice is distinct from mediation though it involves meetings and dialogues to fix responsibility for wrongdoing and to find a solution acceptable to …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This cloze question tests understanding of simple but important quantifiers in English. The passage explains that restorative justice seeks a solution acceptable to every party involved. The blank must be filled with a word that correctly completes the phrase referring to the three parties who participate in the process.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "to find a solution acceptable to __________ three parties."
The passage has already made it clear that there are three primary parties, for example victim, offender, and community or state.
The options are "all", "entire", "full", and "complete".
The correct word must form a natural phrase in English.

Concept / Approach:

When we refer to a small countable group like "three parties", we usually use the quantifier "all" as in "all three parties".
"Entire" normally precedes singular nouns such as "the entire group" or "the entire city".
"Full" and "complete" also do not collocate with "three parties" in this structure.
Therefore, we expect the phrase "all three parties".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Note that "three parties" is a plural, countable noun phrase.
Step 2: Evaluate option a, "all". The phrase "all three parties" is common and natural, meaning every one of the three parties involved.
Step 3: Evaluate option b, "entire". We normally say "the entire three parties" only rarely, and it sounds awkward; "entire" usually modifies singular nouns.
Step 4: Evaluate option c, "full". Phrases such as "full three parties" do not make sense; "full" is more often used with "full number" or "full support".
Step 5: Evaluate option d, "complete". The phrase "complete three parties" is incorrect in this context.
Step 6: Hence, "all" is the only choice that fits in both grammar and meaning, giving "acceptable to all three parties".
Verification / Alternative check:
In discussions about conflict resolution, we often read phrases like "find a solution acceptable to all parties concerned" or "acceptable to all three parties".
This confirms that "all" is the natural quantifier in such official or academic writing.
Therefore, option a is consistent with common usage and the intended meaning of inclusiveness.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option b is wrong because "entire three parties" is not a standard expression and does not sound natural.
Option c is wrong because "full three parties" is grammatically incorrect, as "full" does not work this way with plural countable nouns.
Option d is wrong because "complete three parties" again fails to form a recognised phrase and does not express the idea of every party involved.
Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes select words like "entire" or "complete" because they sound formal or strong, without checking their typical usage.
Another pitfall is ignoring the fact that "three parties" is plural; this leads to wrong combinations.
To avoid such errors, it is important to read whole phrases, not just individual words, and to remember common collocations like "all three".
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: all.

Question 3

In the same passage on restorative justice, choose the correct connector for the blank: More importantly, it directly addresses victim needs and __________ emphasises the private dimensions of a public wrong.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This cloze question focuses on logical connectors that link cause and effect within a sentence. The passage states that restorative justice directly addresses victim needs and, as a natural result, emphasises certain dimensions of wrongdoing. The blank must be filled with a word or phrase that clearly signals this cause effect relationship.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "More importantly, it directly addresses victim needs and __________ emphasises the private dimensions of a public wrong."
The subject "it" refers to restorative justice.
The connector should show that emphasising private dimensions follows logically from addressing victim needs.
Options: "so", "therefore", "because it", "then it".

Concept / Approach:

In formal writing, "therefore" is commonly used to mark a conclusion or effect arising from a previous point.
"So" is informal and usually connects clauses in a different structure, such as "and so it emphasises", which is not given here.
"Because it" introduces a reason, not a result, and would create a confusing structure in this position.
"Then it" suggests sequence in time rather than logical result.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recognise that the sentence states two related actions of restorative justice: addressing victim needs and emphasising private dimensions.
Step 2: Note that the second action flows as a logical consequence of the first.
Step 3: Evaluate option a, "so". The phrase "and so emphasises" could work grammatically, but the blank alone as "so emphasises" without "and" is not what is provided in the passage.
Step 4: Evaluate option b, "therefore". The phrase "and therefore emphasises" is a very natural and formal way to show that the emphasis results from addressing victim needs.
Step 5: Evaluate option c, "because it". That would give "and because it emphasises", which wrongly makes the second clause a reason rather than a result.
Step 6: Evaluate option d, "then it". "And then it emphasises" would express time sequence, which is not the intended meaning of the original passage.
Step 7: Conclude that "therefore" is the most appropriate connector in this formal context.
Verification / Alternative check:
Academic and legal writing often uses structures such as "directly addresses X and therefore emphasises Y".
This pattern clearly presents Y as a consequence of X.
Thus, selecting "therefore" maintains both grammatical accuracy and the formal tone of the passage.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "so" alone in that position does not fit the precise structure used in the original sentence.
Option c is wrong because "because it emphasises" turns the second clause into a reason for something else, which does not match the intended cause effect flow.
Option d is wrong because "then it emphasises" implies simple time order rather than logical consequence.
Common Pitfalls:
Students may choose "so" because it is a common connector in speech, without considering the more formal register of the passage.
Another pitfall is ignoring the subtle difference between cause markers like "because" and effect markers like "therefore".
Developing sensitivity to such connectors is essential for understanding and writing academic English clearly.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: therefore.

Question 4

In the restorative justice passage, choose the correct preposition for the blank: It is not a substitute __________ the formal criminal justice system, but a good backup to reduce its workload.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
Preposition choice is a core part of English grammar tested in many exams. Certain nouns form fixed patterns with particular prepositions. The phrase "a substitute for" is a standard expression meaning something that replaces something else. This question requires recognition of that common collocation in a passage discussing restorative justice and the criminal justice system.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "It is not a substitute __________ the formal criminal justice system, but a good backup to reduce its workload."
Subject "It" refers to restorative justice.
We know restorative justice complements, but does not replace, the formal criminal justice system.
The options are "to", "for", "of", and "from".

Concept / Approach:

In English, we say "substitute for something" or "a substitute for sugar", for example.
"Substitute to", "substitute of", and "substitute from" are not correct in this structure.
Therefore, the preposition "for" is the one that correctly completes the phrase.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify the key phrase: "a substitute __________ the formal criminal justice system".
Step 2: Recall the common pattern "a substitute for something".
Step 3: Evaluate option a, "to". The phrase "substitute to" would be incorrect in standard English.
Step 4: Evaluate option b, "for". The phrase "a substitute for the formal criminal justice system" is grammatically correct and idiomatic.
Step 5: Evaluate option c, "of". "Substitute of" is not used in this way; it might appear in certain technical uses, but not in this general sense.
Step 6: Evaluate option d, "from", which does not fit with "substitute" in this context.
Step 7: Conclude that "for" is the only correct preposition to complete the sentence.
Verification / Alternative check:
Grammar references and dictionaries give examples such as "margarine is a substitute for butter" or "this method cannot be a substitute for hard work".
Applying the same pattern, we get "not a substitute for the formal criminal justice system".
Thus, option b matches standard usage.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "substitute to" does not form a recognised collocation in English.
Option c is wrong as "substitute of" does not convey the idea of replacement in ordinary usage.
Option d is wrong because "substitute from" is ungrammatical in this structure.
Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes treat prepositions as interchangeable and pick one by guesswork, which leads to errors.
It is important to learn nouns like "substitute", "reason", "result", and their fixed prepositional patterns as complete units.
Reading authentic English texts helps build an intuitive sense for these combinations.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: for.

Question 5

Complete the sentence from the restorative justice passage by choosing the best word: It is not a substitute for the formal criminal justice system, but a good backup to reduce its workload and to increase the sense of justice in the system as a ___…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question assesses understanding of a common expression used to describe a system in its complete form. The passage states that restorative justice increases the sense of justice in the system "as a whole". The blank requires a word that naturally follows the article "a" and fits the phrase "the system as a whole".
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "a good backup to reduce its workload and to increase the sense of justice in the system as a __________."
The reference is to the criminal justice system considered in its entirety.
Options: "total", "aggregate", "whole", "entirety".
The phrase must be grammatically and idiomatically correct.

Concept / Approach:

The expression "as a whole" is a fixed phrase meaning "considered in all its parts together".
"Total" and "aggregate" are adjectives or nouns used differently and do not usually follow "as a" in this way.
"Entirety" is a noun but typically used with "in its entirety", not "as a entirety".
Therefore, "whole" is the expected word in this context.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Focus on the structure "the system as a __________".
Step 2: Recall the standard phrase "as a whole", which fits perfectly with "the system".
Step 3: Evaluate option a, "total". Phrases like "as a total" are not idiomatic; "total" is mainly an adjective.
Step 4: Evaluate option b, "aggregate". The expression "as a aggregate" is incorrect; we would say "as an aggregate" if we used it at all, but this is not common in this context.
Step 5: Evaluate option c, "whole". The phrase "as a whole" is widely used and sounds natural and precise.
Step 6: Evaluate option d, "entirety". We generally say "in its entirety", not "as a entirety", so this does not fit.
Step 7: Conclude that "whole" is the only choice that produces the familiar phrase "the system as a whole".
Verification / Alternative check:
Legal and academic writing often uses expressions like "society as a whole", "the economy as a whole", and "the system as a whole".
Substituting "whole" into the given sentence preserves this recognised pattern and clearly communicates that the entire system benefits.
Hence, option c is the correct answer.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "as a total" is not a fixed or natural phrase here.
Option b is wrong because "aggregate" does not follow "as a" in normal usage in this context and would require a different article.
Option d is wrong because the noun "entirety" is usually used in the phrase "in its entirety", rather than after "as a".
Common Pitfalls:
Students may pick a word based only on the idea of completeness without considering the fixed expression "as a whole".
Another pitfall is ignoring articles and how they interact with the following noun.
Learning common phrases such as "as a whole" helps not only in answering such questions but also in writing clear and natural English.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: whole.

Question 6

In the following sentence, identify the part that contains an error in standard English usage: They will (A) leave the office at six and (B) reach at home by seven. (C) No error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
Error spotting questions check knowledge of common grammar patterns and collocations. In this sentence, the learner must identify which segment contains a mistake. The verb "reach" has a specific pattern of usage in English, and this question focuses on whether candidates know that "reach home" does not take a preposition before "home".
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence broken into parts: (A) They will, (B) leave the office at six and, (C) reach at home by seven, (D) No error.
The tense is simple future, which is acceptable in all parts.
The suspected issue arises in the phrase "reach at home".

Concept / Approach:

The verb "reach" is a transitive verb that directly takes its object without a preposition.
Standard usage is "reach home", "reach the station", "reach school", not "reach at home" or "reach at the station".
Other parts of the sentence follow normal patterns: "will leave", "at six", and "by seven".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine part A: "They will". This correctly introduces the simple future tense with the subject "They".
Step 2: Examine part B: "leave the office at six and". The verb "leave" followed by "the office" and the time expression "at six" is correct.
Step 3: Examine part C: "reach at home by seven". Here, "reach" is followed by the preposition "at", which conflicts with standard usage.
Step 4: Correct usage would be "reach home by seven" without any preposition before "home".
Step 5: Therefore, part C contains the error.
Verification / Alternative check:
Consider other examples: "They reached home safely", "I reached the airport on time". In each, "reach" directly takes its object.
If a preposition is used, a different verb is usually required, such as "arrive at home" or "arrive at the station".
Thus, "reach at home" is ungrammatical, while "reach home" fits the pattern.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a, part A, is correct because "They will" correctly introduces the future tense.
Option b, part B, is correct; "leave the office at six and" is grammatically sound and idiomatic.
Option d states "No error", which is wrong because we have identified a clear error in part C.
Common Pitfalls:
Many learners confuse "reach" with "arrive" and incorrectly attach prepositions after "reach".
Because "arrive at" and "arrive in" are correct, students mistakenly extend this pattern to "reach".
To avoid this confusion, remember: "reach" takes a direct object, while "arrive" is followed by a preposition.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: C.

Question 7

In the following sentence, choose the part that contains an error, if any: The new lecturer (A) seems to be very popular with (B) most of the class. (C) No error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
Some error spotting questions are designed to test whether learners can recognise a sentence that is already correct. This item presents a sentence about a lecturer being popular with students, and the candidate must determine whether any segment contains a grammatical or usage mistake.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence segments: (A) The new lecturer, (B) seems to be very popular with, (C) most of the class, (D) No error.
The subject is "The new lecturer".
The predicate describes popularity among the class.
We need to examine subject verb agreement, prepositions, and article usage.

Concept / Approach:

"The new lecturer" is a correct noun phrase referring to a single person.
"Seems to be" correctly matches the singular subject and expresses a perception or impression.
"Popular with" is a standard collocation in English for expressing popularity among a group of people.
"Most of the class" correctly refers to the majority of students in that class.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Check part A: "The new lecturer". This is a grammatically correct noun phrase with the definite article and adjective followed by a singular noun.
Step 2: Check part B: "seems to be very popular with". The verb "seems" agrees with the singular subject, and the phrase "very popular with" is idiomatic.
Step 3: Check part C: "most of the class". This is a standard way to refer to the majority of students and is grammatically correct.
Step 4: Since parts A, B, and C are all correct, no error exists in the sentence.
Step 5: Therefore, the correct choice is D, indicating that there is no error.
Verification / Alternative check:
We can rephrase the sentence as "The new lecturer appears to be very popular with most of the class", which has the same structure.
No element sounds awkward or incorrect in standard English.
Thus, we confirm that the original sentence is grammatically acceptable.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because there is no error in part A; "The new lecturer" correctly introduces the subject.
Option b is wrong because part B uses correct verb agreement and the common phrase "popular with".
Option c is wrong because part C uses "most of the class" correctly to describe the majority of students.
Common Pitfalls:
Some learners think every error spotting question must contain an error, so they search for unnecessary changes.
Others may be unsure about the preposition, but "popular with" is the standard expression, not "popular among" only.
Training oneself to accept correct sentences as error free is essential for performing well in this question type.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: D (No error).

Question 8

Identify the part of the sentence that contains an error: The museum's revolving doors (A) stopped the crooks (B) as they jam half way round. (C) No error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question focuses on verb tense consistency in narrative sentences. The context describes an event in the past involving revolving doors and crooks. Learners must identify which part of the sentence violates the tense pattern and therefore contains the error.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence segments: (A) The museum's revolving doors, (B) stopped the crooks, (C) as they jam half way round, (D) No error.
Parts A and B clearly use past tense: "stopped".
Part C uses the present tense form "jam".
The sentence describes a single sequence of past events.

Concept / Approach:

When a sentence narrates a specific incident in the past, all main verbs describing actions in that incident should generally be in the same past tense.
Using a present tense verb like "jam" in the middle of a past narrative creates a tense inconsistency.
The correct past form should be "jammed".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Observe part A: "The museum's revolving doors". This is a noun phrase and does not show any tense issue.
Step 2: Examine part B: "stopped the crooks". The verb "stopped" is in simple past, which is appropriate for a completed action.
Step 3: Examine part C: "as they jam half way round". Here, "jam" is in present tense, which does not match the past tense used in "stopped".
Step 4: To maintain consistency, it should read "as they jammed half way round", making both actions clearly past events.
Step 5: Therefore, part C is the segment containing the error.
Verification / Alternative check:
Rewriting the sentence completely in correct form gives: "The museum's revolving doors stopped the crooks as they jammed half way round."
This form is grammatically consistent and narrates a completed sequence of actions in the past.
Any mix of present tense with this past narrative would be inappropriate unless a deliberate stylistic shift is intended, which is not the case in exam questions.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because the noun phrase "The museum's revolving doors" is correct.
Option b is wrong because "stopped the crooks" uses correct simple past tense.
Option d is wrong because the sentence definitely contains an error in part C, so we cannot mark "No error".
Common Pitfalls:
Some learners overlook tense mismatches when the overall meaning seems clear, but competitive exams require precise grammar.
The presence of the word "as" may distract students, but the key is to check the verb forms on both sides of the clause.
Practising with many narrative examples helps build an instinct for keeping tenses consistent in sentences.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: C.

Question 9

In the following sentence, select the part that contains an error: He had no (A) accuse for attacking (B) that old man. (C) No Error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This error spotting question tests vocabulary accuracy, specifically the distinction between the noun "excuse" and the verb "accuse". The sentence describes a person lacking justification for an attack on an old man, and the correct noun is required after "no".
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "He had no (A) accuse for attacking (B) that old man. (C) No Error (D)" with three marked parts.
"He had no" suggests that a noun should follow, indicating something he did not have.
The word "accuse" appears where a noun such as "excuse" should be.

Concept / Approach:

"Accuse" is a verb meaning to charge someone with an offence or wrongdoing.
"Excuse" is a noun meaning a reason or justification offered for an action.
After "no", we need a noun object, as in "no excuse", "no reason", "no justification".
Therefore, "accuse" is incorrect here and must be replaced with "excuse".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine part A: "He had no". This phrase sets up the idea that the subject lacked something, which will be a noun.
Step 2: Examine part B: "accuse for attacking". The word "accuse" is a verb, which does not fit grammatically after "no".
Step 3: Recognise that the intended meaning is that he had no justification or excuse for his behaviour.
Step 4: The correct word should be "excuse", which is a noun and fits the pattern "no excuse for attacking that old man".
Step 5: Thus, the error lies in part B, which misuses "accuse" instead of "excuse".
Verification / Alternative check:
Consider similar correct sentences: "He had no excuse for shouting", "She had no excuse for being late".
These examples show that "no excuse for" is a standard structure.
Replacing "accuse" with "excuse" aligns the given sentence with these correct patterns.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "He had no" is grammatically fine by itself and only awaits a correct noun.
Option c is wrong because "that old man" is a correct object phrase and does not contain any error.
Option d is wrong because the sentence does contain an error, so we cannot select "No Error".
Common Pitfalls:
Learners may confuse words that sound similar, such as "accuse" and "excuse", especially in fast reading.
Another pitfall is not checking the part of speech required by the structure of the sentence.
To avoid such mistakes, students should pay attention to collocations like "no excuse for" and remember that "accuse" functions differently as a verb.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: B.

Question 10

In the following sentence, choose the segment that contains an error: Mothers keep on (A) to encouraging their children (B) to study. (C) No Error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question tests knowledge of verb plus preposition plus gerund patterns. The phrasal verb "keep on" is followed by a gerund form of another verb. The sentence describes mothers repeatedly encouraging their children, and the structure after "keep on" must be grammatically correct.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence parts: (A) Mothers keep on, (B) to encouraging their children, (C) to study, (D) No Error.
The phrase "keep on" suggests continuation of an action.
The word "encouraging" appears with an unnecessary "to" before it.

Concept / Approach:

The phrasal verb "keep on" is followed by a gerund, such as "keep on working" or "keep on smiling".
We do not say "keep on to working"; the preposition "to" is redundant and incorrect here.
Therefore, the natural expression is "keep on encouraging".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Look at part A: "Mothers keep on". This is correct because "keep on" introduces a repeated or continuous action.
Step 2: Look at part B: "to encouraging their children". The infinitive marker "to" is incorrectly placed before the gerund form "encouraging".
Step 3: The standard structure should be "keep on encouraging their children", without "to".
Step 4: Part C, "to study", is correct because "encouraging their children to study" is a proper pattern: encourage someone to do something.
Step 5: Therefore, the error lies in part B.
Verification / Alternative check:
Correcting the sentence gives: "Mothers keep on encouraging their children to study."
This new version follows two correct patterns: "keep on" plus gerund, and "encouraging someone to study".
The corrected sentence reads smoothly and conforms to standard English usage.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "Mothers keep on" is correct and sets up the idea of repeated action.
Option c is wrong because "to study" is correctly linked to the verb "encouraging".
Option d is wrong because there is indeed an error in the sentence, so "No Error" cannot be chosen.
Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes mix patterns and add "to" before a gerund where it does not belong, especially after multi word verbs like "keep on".
A related mistake is using an infinitive after "keep", for example "keep to work" instead of "keep working".
It is useful to remember that "keep on" is followed directly by the "-ing" form when describing ongoing actions.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: B.

Question 11

Identify the part of the sentence that has an error: Mohan wishes (A) he will be (B) richer. (C) No Error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This error spotting question focuses on the use of the verb "wish" to talk about unreal or imagined situations. When we express a wish about a present state that we would like to be different, English uses a past tense form such as "were" or "was", not "will be". The sentence here describes Mohan's wish to be richer, which is an unreal present situation.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "Mohan wishes (A) he will be (B) richer. (C) No Error (D)".
The subject is "Mohan", and the verb "wishes" refers to his desire regarding his present condition.
Part B uses "will be", a future tense form.

Concept / Approach:

When "wish" is used to talk about present unreal situations, the clause that follows usually uses a past tense, for example "I wish I were taller" or "She wishes she had more time".
"Will be" refers to a future event and is not appropriate in such structures.
Thus the correct pattern here would be "Mohan wishes he were richer" or "Mohan wishes he was richer".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify the meaning: Mohan is expressing a desire about his current financial condition, not about a future plan.
Step 2: Remember the grammar rule: for unreal present wishes, we use a past tense after "wish".
Step 3: In part B, the phrase "he will be" incorrectly uses future tense.
Step 4: The correct form should be "he were" or in less formal English "he was".
Step 5: Since "will be" is wrong in this structure, part B is the segment containing the error.
Verification / Alternative check:
Compare with sentences like "I wish I were richer" or "They wish they had a bigger house".
In each case, the clause after "wish" uses a past tense to express a present unreal idea.
If we said "I wish I will be richer", it would sound unnatural and grammatically incorrect.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "Mohan wishes" is correctly formed and introduces the idea of desire.
Option c is wrong because the single word "richer" properly serves as a complement in the sentence.
Option d is wrong because the sentence clearly includes an error in part B, so we cannot choose "No Error".
Common Pitfalls:
Learners often think of wishes as relating to the future and mistakenly use "will" in the clause after "wish".
Another misunderstanding arises from not distinguishing between real future plans and unreal present desires.
To handle such questions correctly, students should memorise the pattern: wish plus past tense for present unreal situations, wish plus past perfect for regrets about the past.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: B.

Question 12

In the sentence below, select the part that contains an error: I am not familiar with (A) all the important places in this town (B) although I had been living here for two years. (C) No Error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This error spotting question tests the correct use of verb tenses when describing a situation that began in the past and continues up to the present. The speaker talks about living in a town for two years up to now, yet not being familiar with all the important places. The tense used in the subordinate clause must reflect this ongoing situation.
Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence parts: (A) I am not familiar with, (B) all the important places in this town, (C) although I had been living here for two years, (D) No Error.
"I am not familiar" is present tense and refers to the speaker's current state.
"Had been living" is past perfect continuous, which suggests an action completed before another past reference point.
The phrase "for two years" shows the duration of residence.

Concept / Approach:

When an action started in the past and is still continuing up to the present, English normally uses the present perfect continuous tense, such as "have been living".
The past perfect continuous "had been living" is used when both the action and its reference point are in the past.
Since the main clause is in present tense, the clause about living in the town should also connect to the present with "have been living".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Note that part A says "I am not familiar", clearly indicating that the speaker is talking about the present.
Step 2: Part B, "all the important places in this town", expands this present state and is correct.
Step 3: Part C, "although I had been living here for two years", uses past perfect continuous tense.
Step 4: Past perfect continuous is inappropriate because there is no past reference point such as "before I moved away". The speaker is still living in the town.
Step 5: The correct tense should be present perfect continuous: "although I have been living here for two years".
Step 6: Thus, part C is the segment that contains the error.
Verification / Alternative check:
A corrected version of the sentence would read: "I am not familiar with all the important places in this town although I have been living here for two years."
This properly connects the duration of living in the town with the present situation described in part A.
Using "had been living" would only be correct if the entire sentence referred to a time in the past, which it does not.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because "I am not familiar with" is a correct way to express lack of familiarity.
Option b is wrong because "all the important places in this town" is a grammatically accurate object phrase.
Option d is wrong because we have clearly identified an error in part C, so we cannot select "No Error".
Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes overuse the past perfect tense, thinking it sounds more advanced, even when it does not fit the time reference.
Another common mistake is ignoring the tense of the main clause when choosing the tense for the subordinate clause.
To avoid such errors, learners should remember that present perfect or present perfect continuous links past actions with the present, while past perfect is reserved for earlier past actions relative to another past event.
Final Answer:
The correct answer is: C.

Question 13

In this English grammar error-spotting question, identify which part of the sentence contains an error in the use of the uncountable noun: "The receptionist gave us (A) much informations (B) which we needed. (C) No Error. (D)" If the sentence is cor…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question belongs to the English grammar error-spotting category. You are given a sentence split into labelled parts and must identify which part contains the grammatical error. The sentence focuses on the correct use of the uncountable noun "information" in a typical everyday communication context involving a receptionist and visitors.

Given Data / Assumptions:

The full sentence is: "The receptionist gave us much informations which we needed."
Part A: "The receptionist gave us"
Part B: "much informations"
Part C: "which we needed."
Part D: represents "No Error".
The task is to locate the part that violates standard English grammar usage.

Concept / Approach:
The noun "information" in English is an uncountable (mass) noun. Uncountable nouns do not normally take a plural form and do not use "many" or plural "s" endings. Instead, they use quantifiers such as "much", "a piece of", "a lot of" or "some". Therefore, the phrase "informations" is incorrect; the correct form is "information". The rest of the sentence must also be checked for tense, verb form, and clause structure, but the main suspected error is in part B.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Part A, "The receptionist gave us". This is grammatically correct: subject "The receptionist", verb "gave" (simple past), and object pronoun "us".
Step 2: Examine Part B, "much informations". The determiner "much" is correctly used with uncountable nouns, but "informations" is incorrect because "information" does not take a plural "s". The correct phrase is "much information".
Step 3: Examine Part C, "which we needed." This relative clause correctly refers back to "information" and is properly formed in the past tense.
Step 4: Because only Part B contains the grammatical error, the correct option must point specifically to Part B.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, rewrite the sentence in correct English: "The receptionist gave us much information which we needed." This sentence is fully grammatical and natural. You could also say "a lot of information" or "all the information we needed", but you would never say "informations" in standard English. Checking all parts confirms that only Part B is faulty.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: Correct subject verb object structure; no error in tense or word choice.
Part C: Correct relative clause; "which we needed" appropriately modifies "information".
Part D (No Error): Cannot be correct because we have clearly identified a mistake in Part B.
Error in more than one part: Incorrect because Parts A and C are grammatically sound.

Common Pitfalls:
Many learners try to make mass nouns plural by adding "s", influenced by their first language or by thinking of countable equivalents. Words like "information", "advice", "furniture", "news", and "scenery" are typically uncountable in English. Remember that they do not take "s" and use quantifiers like "much", "some", or structures like "a piece of information". Being aware of this helps you avoid common exam traps like "informations" or "advices".

Final Answer:
The error is in Part B: "much informations", which should be "much information".

Question 14

In this English grammar error-spotting question, identify which part of the sentence contains the error in verb agreement and tense: "Ravi Shankar's performance was given (A) a standing ovation by the (B) people who has come to hear him. (C) No Erro…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your understanding of subject verb agreement and tense consistency in complex sentences. The sentence describes a musical performance by Ravi Shankar and the reaction of the audience. You must identify which segment of the sentence contains the grammatical error, focusing particularly on how the relative clause agrees with its subject and matches the tense of the main clause.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Full sentence: "Ravi Shankar's performance was given a standing ovation by the people who has come to hear him."
Part A: "Ravi Shankar's performance was given"
Part B: "a standing ovation by the"
Part C: "people who has come to hear him."
Part D: indicates "No Error".
The context is a completed event in the past.

Concept / Approach:
There are two key points here: subject verb agreement and correct tense in a relative clause that refers to a past event. The subject of the relative clause is "people", which is plural and requires a plural verb. Also, when we describe an action that happened before another past event, we often use the past perfect tense ("had come") rather than simple present or simple past. Thus, the clause "who has come" sounds wrong both in number and in tense.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Check Part A: "Ravi Shankar's performance was given". This is a passive construction. Subject: "Ravi Shankar's performance"; passive verb: "was given". It is grammatically correct.
Step 2: Check Part B: "a standing ovation by the". This is part of the object phrase "was given a standing ovation by the people". The phrase is correct so far.
Step 3: Examine Part C: "people who has come to hear him." The noun "people" is plural and should be followed by a plural verb ("have"), not "has". Also, the action of coming to hear him happened before the performance ended, so the natural tense in reported narration is "had come".
Step 4: A correct version would be: "people who had come to hear him" or, in simpler past narration, "people who had come to listen to him".
Step 5: Since Part C alone contains this double problem of agreement and tense, it is the erroneous segment.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rewrite the full corrected sentence: "Ravi Shankar's performance was given a standing ovation by the people who had come to hear him." This version reads smoothly and is grammatically sound. Compare it with the original: "people who has come" feels wrong immediately to a trained ear. No other part shows any grammatical violation, confirming that the error lies solely in Part C.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: Correct passive construction; "performance was given a standing ovation" is standard.
Part B: "a standing ovation by the" is part of a standard phrase and contains no error by itself.
Part D (No Error): Incorrect, because Part C clearly violates subject verb agreement and proper tense usage.
Error in more than one part: Not valid; only the relative clause in Part C needs correction.

Common Pitfalls:
Students often mis-handle relative clauses after collective or plural nouns, especially when the verb is separated from its subject by several words. Another common pitfall is mixing present perfect ("has come") with a clearly past narrative ("was given"). In reported narratives about completed events, remember to adjust tense consistently, and always ensure the verb agrees with its subject, not with a nearby singular noun.

Final Answer:
The error is in Part C: "people who has come to hear him."; it should be "people who had come to hear him".

Question 15

In this English grammar error-spotting item, identify which part of the sentence is incorrect in its use of verb tense and aspect: "People are wanting (A) to see the home team (B) win the game. (C) No Error. (D)". Choose the option that marks the wr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question examines your understanding of stative verbs and the correct use of continuous (progressive) aspect in English. The sentence describes a general desire of people to see their home team win a game. You must determine which part of the sentence is grammatically incorrect, especially with respect to the verb form "are wanting".

Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "People are wanting to see the home team win the game."
Part A: "People are wanting"
Part B: "to see the home team"
Part C: "win the game."
Part D: represents "No Error".
The context is a general, ongoing desire rather than a temporary physical action.

Concept / Approach:
In English, some verbs are typically stative, describing states, feelings, opinions, or possession, rather than actions. Common stative verbs include "want", "like", "know", "believe", "own", and "need". These verbs are usually not used in continuous or progressive forms when they refer to stable mental states or general truths. Instead, the simple present tense is preferred. As a result, "People want to see..." is correct, while "People are wanting to see..." is generally nonstandard in neutral exam English.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Look at Part A: "People are wanting". The subject "People" is plural, and "are wanting" is present continuous tense.
Step 2: Recognise that "want" here describes a general desire, not a momentary action. For general states or wishes, English uses the simple present: "People want".
Step 3: Therefore, "are wanting" is not idiomatic in this context and should be replaced by "want".
Step 4: Examine Part B: "to see the home team". This is a correct infinitive phrase used as the object of "want".
Step 5: Examine Part C: "win the game." This is a bare infinitive complement after "see": "to see the home team win the game" is a standard and correct structure.
Step 6: Since only Part A has a tense/aspect problem, that is the location of the error.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rephrase the sentence correctly: "People want to see the home team win the game." Now the structure uses simple present for a general desire, which is standard in textbooks and exam contexts. If you compare "People are wanting to see..." with "People want to see...", the second version clearly sounds more natural. This confirms that Part A is incorrect and requires correction.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part B: The infinitive "to see the home team" is grammatically correct and idiomatic.
Part C: The bare infinitive "win the game" correctly follows "see".
Part D (No Error): Incorrect because the present continuous "are wanting" is not acceptable in this stative context.
Error in more than one part: Not valid, as only Part A needs correction.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes overgeneralise the use of continuous forms, especially because many learners are taught that continuous forms show something happening "now". However, this rule does not apply to many stative verbs. Overusing progressive forms with verbs like "want", "like", or "know" leads to errors like "I am knowing", "He is liking", or "People are wanting", none of which are standard in exam English. Always check whether the verb describes an action or a state before choosing the tense form.

Final Answer:
The incorrect segment is Part A: "People are wanting", which should be "People want".

Question 16

In this English grammar error-spotting question, identify which part of the sentence is incorrect in its use of the preposition after "elected": "He was elected (A) as chairman (B) of the college. (C) No Error. (D)". Choose the option that marks the…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question assesses your knowledge of standard English usage after certain verbs, especially the verb "elect" when it describes choosing someone for a position. The sentence talks about a person being chosen as chairman of a college committee or body. You need to decide whether the use of "as" in this context is correct or whether a more natural, idiomatic construction is required.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "He was elected as chairman of the college."
Part A: "He was elected"
Part B: "as chairman"
Part C: "of the college."
Part D: indicates that there is no error.
The context is a formal election to a position or office.

Concept / Approach:
In standard formal English, the verb "elect" is usually followed directly by the office or position, without the preposition "as". For example, we say "He was elected chairman", "She was elected president", or "They elected him captain." While "elected as" may sometimes be heard in informal speech, most grammar and usage guides prefer the structure "elected + position" with no preposition. Exam questions follow this stricter standard and treat "elected as chairman" as incorrect.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Analyse Part A: "He was elected". This is a correct passive construction in the simple past tense.
Step 2: Analyse Part B: "as chairman". This segment introduces the position to which he was elected. However, the verb "elect" does not normally require "as" before the position in formal English.
Step 3: The correct phrase should be "He was elected chairman", not "He was elected as chairman".
Step 4: Analyse Part C: "of the college." This prepositional phrase correctly specifies the institution and is grammatically sound.
Step 5: Since Parts A and C are correct, and Part B contains the nonstandard usage, Part B is the portion with the error.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rewrite the sentence in the recommended form: "He was elected chairman of the college." This version is standard and often appears in newspapers, official reports, and textbooks. Compare it with "He was elected as chairman of the college", which sounds less precise and is typically not accepted in competitive exam grammar. This difference confirms that "as" should be removed in this context.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: "He was elected" correctly introduces the passive voice with no tense or agreement error.
Part C: "of the college" is the correct prepositional phrase to describe the institution where he holds the position.
Part D (No Error): Cannot be chosen because we have identified a definite usage issue in Part B.
Error in more than one part: Incorrect because only the presence of "as" in Part B is problematic.

Common Pitfalls:
Many learners overuse prepositions such as "as" after verbs like "appoint", "elect", "consider", and "name". For example, "He was appointed as manager" or "She was elected as president" are common but not recommended in formal exam English. The concise forms "appointed manager", "elected president", and "named captain" are preferred. Paying attention to such fixed patterns improves both accuracy and fluency in written English.

Final Answer:
The incorrect segment is Part B: "as chairman"; the correct sentence is "He was elected chairman of the college.".

Question 17

In this English grammar error-spotting question, identify which part of the sentence contains the incorrect prepositional phrase: "Candidates present in the examination hall (A) should make use (B) with such opportunities. (C) No Error. (D)". Choose…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question checks your understanding of fixed expressions and correct preposition usage in English. The sentence describes candidates in an examination hall and advises them to take advantage of opportunities. The key phrase "make use" requires a specific preposition to form a correct idiomatic expression. You must find which part of the sentence violates standard usage.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "Candidates present in the examination hall should make use with such opportunities."
Part A: "Candidates present in the examination hall"
Part B: "should make use"
Part C: "with such opportunities."
Part D: means "No Error".
The sentence intends to convey the idea of "taking advantage of" opportunities that are available.

Concept / Approach:
In English, "make use" is a fixed collocation that is normally followed by the preposition "of", not "with". The expression "make use of something" means "to utilise something" or "to take advantage of something." Prepositions cannot usually be swapped freely in idiomatic phrases without causing grammatical or usage errors. Therefore, we expect "make use of such opportunities", not "make use with such opportunities".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Part A: "Candidates present in the examination hall". This is a correctly formed noun phrase with a participial phrase modifying "Candidates".
Step 2: Examine Part B: "should make use". The modal "should" is correctly followed by the base form "make", and "make use" is the beginning of a standard collocation.
Step 3: Examine Part C: "with such opportunities." The preposition "with" is incorrectly attached to "make use". The correct preposition is "of": "make use of such opportunities."
Step 4: Combine the corrected parts: "Candidates present in the examination hall should make use of such opportunities."
Step 5: Since only the prepositional phrase in Part C is wrong, Part C is the segment that contains the error.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider similar sentences: "You must make use of all the resources available" and "Students should make use of the library facilities." In each case, "of" follows "make use". Substituting "with" would produce unidiomatic sentences. Applying the same rule here confirms that the sentence should read "make use of such opportunities", not "make use with such opportunities".

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: Grammatically correct; it clearly states which candidates are being referred to.
Part B: Correct use of the modal "should" with the phrase "make use"; the error lies not in the verb phrase but in the following preposition.
Part D (No Error): Cannot be chosen because we have identified a definite prepositional error in Part C.
Error in more than one part: Not valid because only the choice of "with" is wrong; everything else is acceptable.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake in English learning is to treat prepositions as interchangeable or to translate them directly from one's mother tongue. However, idiomatic expressions such as "make use of", "take care of", "look forward to", and "rely on" have fixed prepositions that must be learned as whole units. Confusing them leads to unnatural sentences. Regular reading and practice with collocations are crucial to mastering such expressions for competitive exams.

Final Answer:
The incorrect segment is Part C: "with such opportunities."; it should be "of such opportunities".

Question 18

In this English grammar error-spotting question on tense consistency and reported speech, identify which part of the sentence contains the error: "He said that it was the first time (A) that such a trick (B) is discovered. (C) No Error. (D)". Choose…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your understanding of tense consistency in reported speech, especially in sentences that use the expression "the first time". The sentence describes what someone said about the discovery of a trick. To answer correctly, you must align the tense of the subordinate clause with the past time reference introduced in the reporting clause and the phrase "the first time".

Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "He said that it was the first time that such a trick is discovered."
Part A: "He said that it was the first time"
Part B: "that such a trick"
Part C: "is discovered."
Part D: indicates "No Error".
The speaker is reporting a past statement about a discovery that has already occurred.

Concept / Approach:
In reported speech, when the reporting verb is in the past tense ("said"), verbs in the subordinate clauses usually shift back in time to maintain consistency, unless the statement describes a permanent truth. Furthermore, the phrase "it was the first time" normally calls for the past perfect tense or past perfect passive in the next clause, because we refer to an event that had not happened before that point in time. Therefore, after "it was the first time that...", we expect a structure like "such a trick had been discovered", not "is discovered".

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine Part A: "He said that it was the first time". The reporting verb "said" is in the past tense, and "it was the first time" correctly matches this past perspective.
Step 2: Examine Part B: "that such a trick". This segment simply introduces the noun phrase "such a trick" and is grammatically fine.
Step 3: Examine Part C: "is discovered." Here, the verb "is discovered" is in the present passive form, which does not match the past time frame established by "He said" and "it was the first time".
Step 4: For correct tense consistency, Part C should read "had been discovered", giving the full clause: "that such a trick had been discovered."
Step 5: Therefore, Part C is the segment that contains the error.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rewrite the entire sentence in correct form: "He said that it was the first time that such a trick had been discovered." This structure clearly shows that at that past moment, this discovery had never occurred before. Using "is discovered" suggests a present time frame and breaks the reported speech pattern. Comparing the two versions confirms that only Part C is inaccurate.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: Correctly uses the past tense "said" and "was" to describe a past situation.
Part B: Grammatically sound as a noun phrase; it simply introduces what kind of trick is being discussed.
Part D (No Error): Cannot be chosen because Part C clearly violates tense consistency.
Error in more than one part: Incorrect, as Parts A and B are acceptable in standard English.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners often forget to shift tenses in reported speech when the reporting verb is in the past, especially in complex sentences. Another frequent mistake is using simple present or simple past after phrases like "it was the first time". For events that had never occurred before a particular point, the past perfect ("had done", "had been discovered") is usually preferred. Practising similar structures such as "It was the first time he had travelled abroad" or "It was the first time they had met" helps reinforce this pattern.

Final Answer:
The error is in Part C: "is discovered."; the correct form is "had been discovered".

Question 19

In this English grammar error-spotting question on modifier order and adverb usage, identify which part of the sentence contains the error: "I saw his (A) unbelievably really quite (B) delightful cottage. (C) No Error. (D)". Choose the option that m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question focuses on the correct and natural use of degree adverbs before an adjective. The sentence attempts to intensify the adjective "delightful" by piling up several adverbs: "unbelievably really quite". Your task is to identify which part of the sentence is ungrammatical or unidiomatic, paying special attention to modifier order and redundancy.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "I saw his unbelievably really quite delightful cottage."
Part A: "I saw his"
Part B: "unbelievably really quite"
Part C: "delightful cottage."
Part D: stands for "No Error".
The intention is to intensify the adjective "delightful" describing the cottage.

Concept / Approach:
In English, we can use adverbs of degree such as "very", "quite", "really", and "extremely" to modify adjectives. However, it is unusual and stylistically poor to stack three or more such adverbs together before a single adjective, especially with no logical order. Native usage typically allows one, or at most two, related degree adverbs. A natural phrase might be "really quite delightful" or "unbelievably delightful", but "unbelievably really quite delightful" is clumsy and redundant, so the error lies in the choice and arrangement of adverbs in Part B.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Check Part A: "I saw his". This is a correct start to a sentence, introducing the subject and verb in simple past tense.
Step 2: Examine Part C: "delightful cottage." This correctly uses the adjective "delightful" to describe the noun "cottage".
Step 3: Focus on Part B: "unbelievably really quite". These are three adverbs of degree placed one after another with no clear hierarchy or necessity.
Step 4: Standard English prefers something like "really quite delightful" (two degree adverbs) or a single powerful adverb like "unbelievably delightful".
Step 5: Hence, the unnatural and incorrect stacking of three degree adverbs in Part B is considered the error in the sentence.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rewrite the sentence in more natural English: "I saw his really quite delightful cottage" or "I saw his unbelievably delightful cottage." Both alternatives sound smooth and idiomatic. In comparison, "I saw his unbelievably really quite delightful cottage" feels overloaded and awkward. Since error-spotting questions in exams emphasise natural standard usage, Part B must be marked as erroneous.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: Grammatically sound; it correctly sets up the subject "I" and verb "saw" with a possessive determiner "his".
Part C: The phrase "delightful cottage" is perfectly correct and natural.
Part D (No Error): Cannot be selected because Part B clearly violates norms of natural word order and concision in modifier use.
Error in more than one part: Not appropriate; only the modifier cluster in Part B is problematic.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes assume that adding more intensifying adverbs automatically makes English more expressive. In reality, overloading sentences with multiple degree words makes them sound clumsy or non native. Good English writing usually selects one strong adverb or a well known pair, such as "really quite" or "very extremely" only in special emphasis. In exams, if a string of adverbs appears exaggerated or unbalanced, it often signals the erroneous part.

Final Answer:
The incorrect segment is Part B: "unbelievably really quite"; it should be reduced and reordered, for example, to "really quite" or "unbelievably", before "delightful cottage".

Question 20

In this English grammar error-spotting question, identify which part of the sentence contains the mistake: "I was shocked (A) to see how much my grand mother had aged (B) since the last time we visited her. (C) No Error. (D)". Choose the option that…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:
This question tests both grammar and standard spelling in English. The sentence describes an emotional reaction to the ageing of a close relative. While the grammar and tense usage are largely correct, there is a common spelling error involving a family relationship term. Your task is to identify which part of the sentence contains that error.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Sentence: "I was shocked to see how much my grand mother had aged since the last time we visited her."
Part A: "I was shocked"
Part B: "to see how much my grand mother had aged"
Part C: "since the last time we visited her."
Part D: indicates "No Error".
The intended family term is the standard English word for the mother of one's parent.

Concept / Approach:
While many error-spotting questions focus purely on grammar, exams also test spelling of commonly used words. The correct single word for the mother of one's father or mother is "grandmother", not "grand mother". English treats "grandmother" as one compound noun. The rest of the sentence uses appropriate tenses: "was shocked" (past simple), "had aged" (past perfect), and "visited" (past simple) in a temporal clause with "since". Therefore, the only problem is the incorrect splitting of "grandmother" into two words in Part B.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Check Part A: "I was shocked". This is grammatically correct; it uses simple past to describe the reaction.
Step 2: Examine Part B: "to see how much my grand mother had aged". The structure "to see how much ... had aged" is correct for expressing surprise at the degree of ageing.
Step 3: Notice the spelling: "grand mother". The standard spelling is the single word "grandmother", not two separate words.
Step 4: Check Part C: "since the last time we visited her." This is a correct time clause, using "since" with a reference point in the past.
Step 5: Thus, only Part B contains an error, and that error is orthographic rather than structural.

Verification / Alternative check:
Rewrite the sentence correctly: "I was shocked to see how much my grandmother had aged since the last time we visited her." Now the entire sentence reads naturally and follows standard spelling. Dictionaries and school textbooks always treat "grandmother" as one word; similarly, "grandfather", "granddaughter", and "grandson" are also written as single words in modern English. This confirms that "grand mother" is not an accepted spelling in formal contexts.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Part A: The phrase "I was shocked" is grammatically correct and appropriate for the context.
Part C: The clause "since the last time we visited her" is correctly constructed and uses the past simple after "since" to mark a reference visit.
Part D (No Error): Cannot be chosen because there is a clear spelling mistake in Part B.
Error in more than one part: Not applicable, as only the spelling in Part B needs correction.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes treat compound family terms inconsistently, writing "grand mother", "grand father", or "grand daughter" as two words. While older texts sometimes used hyphens, standard modern usage combines them into one word: "grandmother", "grandfather", and "granddaughter". In competitive exams, spelling errors with such frequently used words are penalised, so it is important to internalise the correct forms.

Final Answer:
The erroneous segment is Part B: "to see how much my grand mother had aged"; "grand mother" should be written as "grandmother".

English Questions

Questions

Practice smarter