Question 1

In the following sentence improvement question, choose the option that best completes the sentence "He was a hopeless doctor if ever I saw one" so that it is grammatically and idiomatically correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the sentence improvement category and tests your knowledge of idiomatic English. The sentence He was a hopeless doctor if ever I saw one contains an idiomatic expression often used to emphasise that someone is a perfect example of a particular type, usually in a negative or critical sense. The phrase if ever I saw one is a standard idiom. However, the exam expects you to recognise the most natural and grammatically acceptable variant in modern English, which is if I ever saw. Understanding such fixed expressions is essential for scoring well in English usage sections. Given Data / Assumptions: Here is what the sentence conveys. The main clause is He was a hopeless doctor, which is already grammatically correct. The underlined or tested phrase is a type of conditional like expression: if ever I saw one. The context is past time, indicated by was. The speaker wants to emphasise that this doctor is a prime example of a hopeless doctor. The improvement, if any, will affect only the highlighted phrase at the end of the sentence. Concept / Approach: The expression if ever I saw one or if I ever saw one is used to stress that someone or something fully fits a description. When we examine the options, we look for a version that is idiomatic, that matches the tense of the main clause, and that preserves the original meaning. The main clause uses past tense was, so the subordinate clause should use a compatible past form. The phrase if I ever saw fits this requirement and sounds natural in everyday English. The word one is often understood and can be omitted, especially when the type (doctor) is already mentioned just before it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the main clause He was a hopeless doctor, which does not need any change. Step 2: Look at the tested phrase and consider how native speakers express this kind of emphasis: He was a hopeless doctor, if I ever saw one. Step 3: Compare the options with that standard pattern and see that if I ever saw reproduces the idiom correctly and matches the past tense. Step 4: Replace the underlined portion with if I ever saw to get the improved sentence: He was a hopeless doctor, if I ever saw one. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, read the full sentence aloud: He was a hopeless doctor, if I ever saw one. This sounds natural and clearly expresses that the speaker strongly believes the doctor to be a classic example of a hopeless doctor. The phrase if I ever saw one implies that in all the people the speaker has observed, this doctor stands out as especially hopeless. The grammar is consistent: both clauses refer to past time. This confirms that option A is the best choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, if I saw, is incomplete because it removes the adverb ever, which adds emphasis. It also does not fully reflect the idiomatic pattern. Option C, if I see, uses present tense and does not match the past tense of was, so there is a tense mismatch and the idiom sounds wrong. Option D, No improvement, assumes that the original wording is the best, but the exam setter wants you to recognise a more standard formulation. Option E, if I was ever seeing, is unidiomatic and grammatically awkward because was ever seeing suggests a continuous action that does not fit this fixed expression. Therefore, option A is the correct improvement. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes rely only on literal grammar rules and overlook idiomatic usage, especially in phrases that occur frequently in spoken English. Another common mistake is to focus on individual words rather than on the expression as a whole. In sentence improvement questions, it is important to consider how native speakers naturally phrase ideas, not just whether a form is technically possible. When you encounter familiar patterns like as far as I know, if I ever saw one, or for all I care, remember that these function as set expressions. Recognising them will help you choose the most idiomatic option quickly in the exam. Final Answer: The improved sentence should read: He was a hopeless doctor, if I ever saw one.

Question 2

Identify the grammatically correct way to express a past unreal condition in the sentence "If I would have known the truth I would have admitted it".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on conditional sentences in English, specifically past unreal conditions. The given sentence, If I would have known the truth I would have admitted it, is a common learner error. Standard English uses had plus past participle in the if clause for such conditions, not would have. The question checks whether you know the correct structure to talk about a hypothetical situation in the past that did not actually happen. Recognising this pattern is very important for spoken and written accuracy. Given Data / Assumptions: The information in the sentence is as follows. The sentence talks about knowing the truth at some time in the past. The main clause I would have admitted it refers to a result that did not occur. The structure is that of a third conditional (past unreal condition). The underlined part is would have known, which is incorrect in the if clause in formal English. The correct form must match the time frame and meaning while improving the grammar. Concept / Approach: In third conditional sentences, which describe unreal situations in the past, the standard form is: If + subject + had + past participle, followed by subject + would have + past participle in the result clause. Therefore, we expect If I had known the truth, I would have admitted it. The problem with If I would have known is that it uses would in the if clause, which is non standard and considered wrong in formal contexts. We only use had known in this position. The rest of the sentence, I would have admitted it, is already correct for the result clause. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise the sentence as a past unreal conditional because it refers to an unreal situation in the past and its imagined result. Step 2: Recall the general pattern for third conditional sentences: If + had + past participle, followed by would have + past participle. Step 3: Replace would have known with had known in the if clause so that the sentence reads If I had known the truth I would have admitted it. Step 4: Check that the time reference and meaning remain correct: the speaker did not know the truth, so admission did not happen. Verification / Alternative check: Read the corrected sentence aloud: If I had known the truth I would have admitted it. This sounds natural and matches the standard pattern of a third conditional. It clearly expresses that the speaker did not know the truth at the relevant time, and therefore did not admit it, but would have done so if the situation had been different. Comparing this with common textbook examples shows that it is the accepted form. This verifies that had known is the right choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, have known, produces If I have known the truth, which is present perfect and does not match the past hypothetical meaning; it would describe a different time relation. Option C, know, gives If I know the truth I would have admitted it, which mixes present in the if clause with a past unreal result, making the sentence inconsistent. Option D, No improvement, would keep the incorrect structure If I would have known the truth, which is not standard in exam level English. Option E, had been knowing, uses a continuous perfect form that is rarely used in this type of conditional and sounds unnatural. Therefore, option A, had known, is the correct improvement. Common Pitfalls: Many learners transfer patterns from spoken language where would sometimes appears in both clauses, such as If I would have known, I would have done it. However, in formal and exam English only the result clause contains would have, while the if clause uses had plus past participle. Another pitfall is confusing second and third conditionals or mixing tenses across clauses. To avoid these mistakes, practise identifying the time and reality of the situation: present unreal, future imaginary, or past unreal. Then apply the correct structure. For past unreal conditions, always use If + had + past participle in the if clause. Final Answer: The improved sentence should read: If I had known the truth I would have admitted it.

Question 3

In the following question on the correct use of reciprocal pronouns, the sentence "Members usually meet in one another's homes" is given. Choose the option that best improves (or confirms) the underlined phrase.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question is about the correct use of reciprocal pronouns and possessive forms in English. The sentence Members usually meet in one another's homes describes a situation where members of a group visit each other. The underlined phrase one another's homes uses a standard pattern for reciprocal possession. The question asks whether this phrase needs any improvement. You must know that one another and each other are used when two or more people do the same thing to one another, and that they can take the possessive form by adding apostrophe s. Given Data / Assumptions: From the sentence, we can note the following points. The subject Members refers to more than two people in a group. The verb meet indicates a reciprocal action. The phrase in one another's homes shows that the meetings take place in the homes of other members. The underlined part is one another's, which is a possessive form of the reciprocal pronoun. The aim is to decide whether this form is grammatically and idiomatically correct. Concept / Approach: Reciprocal pronouns each other and one another express mutual relationships or actions. When we need a possessive form, we usually add an apostrophe s to the last word: each other's or one another's. Both each other's homes and one another's homes are accepted forms. In many style guides, one another is recommended when more than two people are involved, which fits the idea of members of a group. Therefore, the phrase in one another's homes is already correct and does not need any change. You should choose No improvement when the original wording is standard and the alternatives are incorrect or awkward. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the action meet here is reciprocal, so a reciprocal pronoun is appropriate. Step 2: Note that members refers to a group of more than two people, which supports the use of one another rather than an unusual form. Step 3: Understand that possession is expressed by adding apostrophe s to another, producing one another's homes, meaning the homes of others in the group. Step 4: Compare the given alternatives and see that none of them improves on the original, so choose No improvement. Verification / Alternative check: If we restate the sentence in a more explicit way, it would be Members usually meet in the homes of one another. This paraphrase clearly shows the same meaning as in one another's homes. Grammars and dictionaries of standard English list one another's as a correct possessive form of the reciprocal pronoun. This confirms that the original phrase is entirely acceptable. Any attempt to replace it with irregular or ungrammatical patterns would actually worsen the sentence rather than improve it. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, anothers's, is doubly incorrect: another is singular and the spelling anothers's does not follow any standard possessive rule. Option B, each another's, mixes each and another in a way that is not used in English; the standard expression is each other, not each another. Option C, every other's, sounds unnatural and does not clearly express mutual possession among members of a group. Option E, each others', misplaces the apostrophe and is grammatically wrong; the standard form would be each other's, not each others'. Hence, the original wording is the best. Common Pitfalls: Learners often hesitate between each other and one another and may try to create new forms like each another, which are not used in standard English. Another frequent error is incorrect placement of apostrophes in possessives, especially with pronouns. A simple rule is that reciprocal pronouns take the possessive form by adding apostrophe s to the final word: each other's, one another's. In sentence improvement questions, you should not change an expression that is already correct and idiomatic. When in doubt, think about whether you have seen or heard the phrase in good usage before, and consider how native speakers would normally say it. Final Answer: The sentence is already correct, so the right choice is: No improvement.

Question 4

In this question on idiomatic English, the sentence "Ramu, Shyamu and Abdul came forward one after the others" is given. Choose the option that best improves the underlined expression.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement item examines your knowledge of common English idioms used to describe people doing something in sequence. The sentence Ramu, Shyamu and Abdul came forward one after the others is meant to show that they came forward in turn, not all at once. However, the phrase one after the others is slightly incorrect. The standard idiom in English is one after the other when we have a small set of people or things acting or appearing in sequence. The task is to select the option that best reflects this idiomatic usage while keeping the original meaning. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence provides the following elements. Names: Ramu, Shyamu and Abdul, clearly indicating three individuals. Verb phrase: came forward, meaning they stepped ahead from a group. Underlined part: one after the others, which is intended to show sequential movement. The context implies that each person came forward at a different time, but in an order. The improvement must preserve this idea of sequence without changing the basic meaning. Concept / Approach: In English, the idiom one after the other is widely used to describe actions that happen in succession: cars arrived one after the other, students walked in one after the other, and so on. The phrase one after the others is not standard, because others already suggests a separate group. In the sentence given, we are talking about three named individuals within one group, so one after the other is the correct form. The sentence then reads naturally and clearly communicates that each of the three came forward at a different time, but in an ordered sequence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the underlined phrase one after the others and consider whether it is a familiar and standard expression. Step 2: Recall the common idiom one after the other, which is used to indicate sequential actions by members of the same set. Step 3: Replace one after the others with one after the other in the sentence, giving Ramu, Shyamu and Abdul came forward one after the other. Step 4: Read the improved sentence to ensure that it is grammatical and clearly expresses the idea of coming forward in sequence. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the corrected sentence, Ramu, Shyamu and Abdul came forward one after the other, we can easily understand that they did not move at the same time but instead came forward in turns. This matches the intended meaning much better than one after the others, which sounds awkward and unidiomatic. Corpus evidence and standard grammar references consistently show one after the other as the normal collocation in such contexts, confirming that option B is the most suitable choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, one after others, omits the definite article the and still does not form a known idiom; it sounds incomplete and incorrect. Option C, after one other, is not a standard expression and does not convey the idea of all three individuals acting in sequence. Option D, No improvement, would keep the non standard phrase one after the others and therefore is not correct. Option E, one by the others, changes the meaning and suggests that one person was perhaps influenced or supported by the others, which is not the intended idea. Only option B, one after the other, is idiomatic and fits the context. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse similar sounding expressions such as one after another, one after the other, and each other. While one after another and one after the other are both acceptable, one after the others is not a usual combination. It is important to learn entire phrases rather than isolated words, especially for idioms. When confronted with multiple options that look similar, ask yourself which phrase you have actually seen in good English sources. With practice you will recognise that one after the other is the natural choice in this type of sentence. Final Answer: The improved sentence should be: Ramu, Shyamu and Abdul came forward one after the other.

Question 5

The following sentence is about describing a person: "Your father is among the other things a private person." Choose the option that best improves the underlined phrase.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests your understanding of a common English phrase used to introduce one characteristic among several. The sentence Your father is among the other things a private person is intended to mean that being a private person is one of several qualities that the father possesses. The usual idiomatic expression for this is among other things, not among the other things. Your task is to select the option that makes the sentence both grammatically correct and natural in everyday English. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence provides the following information. Subject: Your father, referring to a specific person. Complement: a private person, describing one of his characteristics. Underlined or tested phrase: among the other things. Intended meaning: being private is one characteristic among several others. The improvement should preserve this meaning while fixing the expression. Concept / Approach: The expression among other things is widely used in English to indicate that the point mentioned is one of several items or qualities, some of which are not explicitly listed. For example, She is, among other things, a talented writer. In this structure, the phrase among other things generally appears between commas and does not use the article the, because it refers to unspecified additional things, not to a specific set previously mentioned. Therefore, among other things is more appropriate than among the other things in the given sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the intention of the sentence: to present being a private person as one of your father's many traits. Step 2: Recall the standard phrase among other things used to introduce one example among several unspecified characteristics. Step 3: Replace among the other things with among other things, so the sentence reads Your father is, among other things, a private person. Step 4: Check that the new sentence is grammatically correct and reads naturally as a statement about one of the father's qualities. Verification / Alternative check: Read the corrected sentence: Your father is, among other things, a private person. The phrase among other things is clearly recognised in good English usage and signals that the speaker could list more qualities but chooses to highlight this one. The commas around the phrase also reflect normal punctuation practice. Comparing this with examples from books and articles confirms that among other things is the standard collocation, so option B is the right choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, of the other things, is not idiomatic in this context and sounds incomplete; it does not convey the idea of listing one quality among many. Option C, among the others, usually refers to other people, not to other qualities or things, so it changes the meaning. Option D, No improvement, would retain among the other things, which is not the usual idiom in such sentences. Option E, between other things, uses between, which normally refers to two items, not an unspecified set, and therefore is inappropriate here. Only option B gives the correct and natural expression. Common Pitfalls: Students often add unnecessary articles like the inside idiomatic expressions, which makes them sound awkward. Another difficulty is confusing phrases that start with among or between and using them interchangeably. A simple guideline is that among is used with more than two items, while between usually describes a relationship involving two specific things or people. In addition, learn common patterns as fixed chunks, such as among other things, among friends, and between you and me. This will help you choose the correct phrase quickly in sentence improvement questions. Final Answer: The improved sentence should read: Your father is, among other things, a private person.

Question 6

This sentence improvement question focuses on correct idiomatic expression: "The aggressive response after the peace summit made no sense of the call for moderation." Choose the option that best improves the underlined part.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item asks you to choose the most appropriate idiomatic expression to complete a sentence about political or diplomatic behaviour. The sentence The aggressive response after the peace summit made no sense of the call for moderation is intended to convey that the reaction completely undermined or contradicted the earlier call for moderation. The phrase made no sense of is not idiomatic in this context. Instead, English uses made nonsense of to show that one thing makes another appear meaningless or absurd. Recognising standard collocations like make nonsense of is crucial for mastering high level usage questions. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence and options provide the following information. Subject: The aggressive response after the peace summit. Object: the call for moderation. Underlined part: made no sense of the call for moderation. Intended meaning: the response contradicted and destroyed the value of the call for moderation. The correct option should express that the response turned the call into something meaningless. Concept / Approach: In English, the phrase to make nonsense of something means to show that it is foolish, inconsistent, or meaningless in practice. For example, His actions made nonsense of his promises. This is exactly the meaning needed here: the aggressive response made the earlier call for moderation look empty and insincere. The structure made nonsense of fits this pattern perfectly. On the other hand, made no sense of is not a recognised idiom; we normally say made no sense to or did not make sense, which describe lack of understanding, not contradiction between policy and action. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the situation: after a peace summit that called for moderation, there was an aggressive response, which clearly contradicts that call. Step 2: Identify the idea the writer wants to express: the aggressive response turned the call for moderation into something meaningless or ridiculous. Step 3: Recall the idiomatic expression make nonsense of something, which means to render it meaningless by acting in the opposite way. Step 4: Replace made no sense of with made nonsense of so the sentence reads The aggressive response after the peace summit made nonsense of the call for moderation. Verification / Alternative check: Read the improved sentence: The aggressive response after the peace summit made nonsense of the call for moderation. This clearly states that the response destroyed the credibility of the earlier call, which is what the sentence aims to convey. Similar examples in political commentary use the same phrase, such as The new policy makes nonsense of the government's stated commitment to transparency. This confirms that made nonsense of is the correct and idiomatic choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, made no sense to, would produce made no sense to the call for moderation, which is grammatically odd and usually used for people, as in made no sense to me. Option C, make no sense to, has a verb in the wrong tense and still suffers from the same idiomatic problem. Option D, No improvement, would keep made no sense of, which is not the standard expression and does not accurately express the idea that the call was undermined. Option E, makes nonsense to, is ungrammatical because we say makes nonsense of, not makes nonsense to. Therefore, option A is the only correct improvement. Common Pitfalls: Many learners try to assemble idioms word by word, resulting in combinations that are close but not actually used by native speakers. This is especially common with phrases involving sense and nonsense. To avoid such mistakes, learn collocations as fixed units, for example: make sense of something, make no sense to someone, and make nonsense of something. In exams, pay attention not only to grammar but also to typical patterns and usage from reading newspapers, magazines, and good books. These sources will help you develop an ear for correct idiomatic English. Final Answer: The improved sentence should read: The aggressive response after the peace summit made nonsense of the call for moderation.

Question 7

In this question on vocabulary and usage, the sentence "She was completely nonplussed by the erratic behaviour of her father" is given. Choose the option that best improves the underlined expression, if any improvement is needed.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement item tests your understanding of the word nonplussed and its correct usage. The sentence She was completely nonplussed by the erratic behaviour of her father describes a situation where a person is very surprised and confused by someone's unpredictable actions. Many learners are unsure about the meaning of nonplussed and may think it means unconcerned, but in standard English it means so surprised and puzzled that one is not sure how to react. The question asks whether the phrase completely nonplussed needs improvement, and the correct answer is that it does not. Given Data / Assumptions: The key points in the sentence are as follows. Subject: She, referring to a daughter or another person. Verb: was, linking the subject to a state. Underlined phrase: completely nonplussed. Cause: the erratic behaviour of her father. Intended meaning: she was extremely puzzled and at a loss for words or actions. Concept / Approach: Nonplussed is an adjective meaning extremely puzzled, bewildered, or at a loss for what to do or say. It comes from a Latin phrase meaning no more, as in no more can be done. It is perfectly correct to modify it with adverbs like completely or utterly, creating expressions such as completely nonplussed. In this sentence the adverb completely simply intensifies the feeling. The rest of the sentence, by the erratic behaviour of her father, clearly explains the cause. None of the alternative options offers a better or even grammatical expression, so the sentence should remain unchanged. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the meaning of nonplussed as very surprised and confused, not knowing how to react. Step 2: Check whether the phrase completely nonplussed is grammatically acceptable; it is, because completely is a normal adverb of degree. Step 3: Consider the context: erratic behaviour from a close family member would reasonably leave someone completely nonplussed. Step 4: Compare the phrase with the alternatives and see that none improves the meaning or correctness, so No improvement is the best choice. Verification / Alternative check: A simple test is to remove completely and read the sentence as She was nonplussed by the erratic behaviour of her father. This still makes perfect sense and matches dictionary definitions of nonplussed. Adding completely simply increases the degree of surprise and confusion. On the other hand, there is no recognised word plussed in this context, and negative constructions like no-nonplussed are clearly artificial. Examples from respected writers and publications show similar patterns, such as He looked utterly nonplussed by the question. This supports keeping the original wording. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, completely plussed, is incorrect because plussed is not used in standard English with the meaning of satisfied or unaffected; the word nonplussed is the established form. Option B, completely no-nonplussed, and option C, entirely not nonplussed, are clumsy double negatives that confuse rather than clarify the meaning. Option E, wholly un-nonplussed, is even more awkward and ungrammatical. None of these options is used in real English, and they all fail to convey the intended sense of deep bewilderment. Hence, No improvement is the correct answer. Common Pitfalls: A common misunderstanding is that nonplussed means calm, unaffected, or unimpressed, but that is a misuse in many varieties of informal speech. In standard exam English, you should remember that nonplussed means perplexed and unsure how to react. Another pitfall is trying to analyse the word into plus and minus and inventing opposite forms that do not exist. Instead, treat nonplussed as a single vocabulary item and learn its correct meaning and collocations. This will help you to select or reject similar options in vocabulary based questions with confidence. Final Answer: The sentence is already correct, so the right choice is: No improvement.

Question 8

This sentence improvement item tests your choice of the most appropriate word to describe union violence in the sentence "Twelve workers were killed in the conflict between two trade unions".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks you to select the most suitable word to replace conflict in a sentence about trade unions where twelve workers were killed. The sentence Twelve workers were killed in the conflict between two trade unions suggests that the situation was violent and physical rather than just a simple disagreement. In such a context, clash is a more appropriate word, because it commonly refers to violent fights or serious confrontations between groups. Your job is to choose the word that best matches the severity and nature of the incident described. Given Data / Assumptions: From the sentence, we can extract the following details. Number of casualties: Twelve workers were killed, indicating a serious and violent event. Groups involved: two trade unions, which implies organised groups of workers. Original word: conflict, a general word that can refer to disagreements at many levels. Context: the event led to deaths, so it was not merely verbal or minor. The replacement should capture the sense of a violent encounter between opposing sides. Concept / Approach: Words like conflict, quarrel, clash, confrontation, and argument all describe forms of disagreement, but they differ in strength and typical usage. Quarrel and argument usually describe verbal disputes, often between individuals, and do not necessarily imply physical violence. Confrontation suggests a face to face meeting that may or may not lead to violence. Clash, on the other hand, is frequently used in news reports to describe violent encounters between groups such as protesters, police, or unions, often resulting in injuries or deaths. Therefore, in a sentence where workers were killed, clash is the most precise and natural choice. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note the seriousness of the event: twelve workers were killed, which implies a violent physical event. Step 2: Examine the possible replacements and recall their usual contexts: quarrel and argument for minor disputes, confrontation for strong opposition, clash for violent fights. Step 3: Match the word that best fits a situation where people died during a dispute between unions. Step 4: Choose clash to produce the sentence Twelve workers were killed in the clash between two trade unions. Verification / Alternative check: Read the improved sentence: Twelve workers were killed in the clash between two trade unions. This sounds like a typical news headline or report and clearly suggests that the unions engaged in a violent fight. If we replace clash with quarrel or argument, the sentence becomes illogical, because people are not normally killed in a simple argument. Confrontation comes close, but it is broader and less vivid; it does not immediately convey the idea of a violent fight leading to deaths. This supports clash as the strongest and most accurate word here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, quarrel, usually describes a small dispute, often verbal, and is far too weak for an incident involving multiple deaths. Option C, confrontation, can describe a serious face to face encounter, but it does not necessarily imply casualties; it is therefore less precise given the information about twelve workers being killed. Option D, No improvement, would keep conflict, which is a general term and does not convey the idea of violent fighting as powerfully as clash does. Option E, argument, is again too mild and most commonly refers to verbal disagreement. Thus, clash is the best fit. Common Pitfalls: Many learners treat conflict, quarrel, confrontation, and clash as near synonyms without noticing the differences in intensity and typical usage. In exam questions, small nuances in meaning often determine the correct choice. To improve your performance, pay attention to how these words are used in newspapers and serious articles. For example, headlines often say police and protesters clashed or union clashes turned violent. Recognising these patterns will help you choose more precise words when required. Always connect the vocabulary choice with the broader context, such as whether there was violence or only disagreement. Final Answer: The improved sentence should be: Twelve workers were killed in the clash between two trade unions.

Question 9

In the following question on correct sentence structure, consider the sentence "No one was there on the platform after the train had left." Choose the option that best improves the underlined part, if required.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question checks your understanding of basic subject verb agreement and natural word order in English. The sentence No one was there on the platform after the train had left describes an empty platform following the departure of a train. The tested segment is was there on, and you must decide whether it needs any correction. The original sentence is already grammatical and idiomatic; it correctly uses was with the singular subject No one and places the adverb there in a natural position. Therefore, no change is necessary. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence contains the following elements. Subject: No one, which is singular. Verb: was, in simple past tense. Adverb: there, indicating presence at a place. Prepositional phrase: on the platform, giving the specific location. Time clause: after the train had left, describing the earlier event. Concept / Approach: In English, no one is treated as a singular pronoun and therefore takes a singular verb such as was. The sequence was there on the platform is a natural way to indicate that nobody was present at that location. The preposition on is correctly used with platform because we stand on a platform. The tense contrast between was (simple past) and had left (past perfect) is also appropriate, because the train left before the time being described. Since all parts of the sentence are grammatically correct and idiomatic, the best choice in a sentence improvement question is No improvement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check subject verb agreement: No one is singular, so it must be followed by was, not were. Step 2: Examine the word order No one was there on the platform and confirm that it follows normal English patterns for stating presence at a place. Step 3: Verify preposition usage: we say on the platform, not in the platform or at the platform in this context. Step 4: Look at the time clause after the train had left and see that it correctly uses past perfect for the earlier action. Verification / Alternative check: Consider the meaning: after the train had left, the platform was empty. The sentence No one was there on the platform after the train had left expresses this clearly. If we change was to were, we get No one were, which is wrong because no one is singular. If we move there after on, as in was on there, the sentence becomes unnatural. Using none instead of no one is possible in some contexts, but None was there on the platform is less natural than the original and not an improvement. The original version matches how fluent speakers describe such a situation, confirming that no change is needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, No one were there on, is incorrect because were does not agree with the singular subject No one, and the phrase stops abruptly. Option B, No one was on there, misplaces there and sounds awkward; we do not usually say on there in this context. Option C, None was there on, again ends abruptly and replaces the natural subject No one with None in a way that does not improve the sentence. Option E, No one had been there on, changes the tense and leaves the sentence incomplete. Thus, the sentence requires no improvement, and option D is correct. Common Pitfalls: Some learners incorrectly treat pronouns like none and no one as plural and use plural verbs, leading to forms such as No one were or None were, which are not standard in exam English. Others attempt to change word order in an attempt to make the sentence sound more complex, but they actually make it less natural. In sentence improvement tasks, always check whether the original form is already correct before trying to alter it. If the grammar, agreement, and idiomatic usage are all fine, choosing No improvement is often the best option. Final Answer: The sentence is already correct as it stands, so the right choice is: No improvement.

Question 10

This item checks your understanding of the use of the definite article with ordinal expressions in "I was first to reach the college today". Choose the most appropriate improvement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests correct use of articles and word order with ordinal expressions. The original sentence is I was first to reach the college today. In English, when we talk about being first, second, or third in a group, we normally use the definite article the before the ordinal: the first, the second, and so on. The task is to choose the option that corrects the structure while preserving the intended meaning that the speaker arrived at the college earlier than everyone else. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence and its context can be summarised as follows. The speaker is describing arrival at the college today. The phrase first to reach lacks the article the. The verb was correctly indicates a past state. The meaning is that among all people, the speaker was the earliest to arrive. The improvement must provide the standard way of expressing this idea in English. Concept / Approach: When using ordinal numbers like first, second, or third as part of a noun phrase, we normally place the definite article the in front: the first to reach the college, the second candidate, the third chapter. The structure I was the first to reach the college today is the natural and idiomatic way to say that no one arrived before the speaker. Other options in the list either change the meaning or use adverbs incorrectly. Therefore, adding the definite article the before first is the key improvement required in this sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the phrase I was first to reach and notice that the article the is missing before first. Step 2: Recall that ordinal expressions usually take the definite article in such sentences: I was the first to reach. Step 3: Select the option that supplies the correct phrase while keeping the verb was in place. Step 4: Form the improved sentence: I was the first to reach the college today. Verification / Alternative check: Read the corrected sentence aloud: I was the first to reach the college today. This clearly conveys that the speaker arrived before all others and sounds natural in standard English. If we omit the article, I was first to reach, the sentence sounds incomplete and less idiomatic, even though listeners may understand it. Comparing to similar expressions, such as She was the first to answer the question or He was the second to finish the race, makes it clear that the is the expected article. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, I did reach first, changes the structure and sounds unnatural; it uses did reach for emphasis but does not fit this context well. Option C, I firstly reached, misuses firstly, which is normally an adverb used in lists (firstly, secondly) rather than to describe arrival order. Option D, No improvement, would keep the sentence in a form that is grammatically acceptable but not idiomatic; exam setters expect the fully correct version with the definite article. Option E, I had been first to reach, changes the tense unnecessarily to past perfect and still lacks the, so it does not solve the main problem. Thus, option B is the correct improvement. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes omit the when they should use it with ordinal numbers, especially in informal speech. Another mistake is using firstly and secondly in places where first and second or the first, the second are required. To improve accuracy, remember that when you identify a person or thing as the earliest or earliest one in a specific group, you almost always use the first. In sentence improvement questions, look closely at articles and small function words; they often determine which option is correct even when all the content words are the same. Final Answer: The improved sentence should read: I was the first to reach the college today.

Question 11

In this question on question tags in English, consider the statement "Life offers myriad choices." Choose the correct question tag that should follow this statement.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with the correct formation of question tags, a common feature in spoken and written English. The main statement is Life offers myriad choices. Question tags are short questions added to the end of a statement to seek confirmation or agreement, such as does it not, does it, or does it not in contracted forms. To form a correct tag, you need to pay attention to the tense and auxiliary verb in the main clause and then choose the opposite polarity for the tag. Here the statement is positive, so the tag must be negative. Given Data / Assumptions: The important elements of the sentence are as follows. Main clause: Life offers myriad choices. Verb: offers, simple present tense. Auxiliary verb: none is explicitly present, so we supply a form of do for the tag. Subject: life, which is singular and treated as it in the tag. Polarity: the statement is positive, so the tag must be negative. Concept / Approach: The basic rule for forming question tags is that the auxiliary verb in the tag matches the tense and subject of the main clause, and the tag has opposite polarity: positive statement with negative tag, negative statement with positive tag. When the main clause has no auxiliary, we use do, does, or did. For a singular third person subject in the simple present, does is the correct auxiliary. The corresponding negative contracted form is does not, usually written as does not or does not. Therefore, the correct question tag after Life offers myriad choices is does not it?, normally written in contracted form as does not it?. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the tense of the main verb offers; it is simple present. Step 2: Recognise that the subject life is a singular third person noun, which takes does in question forms. Step 3: Note that the statement is positive, so the question tag must be negative. Step 4: Form the tag by using does plus the negative not and the pronoun it, giving does not it?, which is written as does not it? in contracted form. Verification / Alternative check: Combine the statement and the tag: Life offers myriad choices, does not it? This sounds like a normal English sentence seeking agreement that life provides many options. If we change the tag to a positive one, such as does it?, the sentence would suggest doubt about whether life offers choices, which does not fit the tone of a general affirmative statement. Changing the auxiliary to did or is would introduce tense or aspect mismatches. Therefore, the tag with does not is the only one that fully matches the rules of question tags for this sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, should not it?, uses should, which is a modal auxiliary expressing suggestion or obligation, not simple present fact, so it does not match the verb offers. Option B, does it?, has the correct auxiliary but is positive, while the main clause is also positive, so the polarity rule is violated. Option D, is it?, uses the verb be, which is not the auxiliary used in the main clause, so it does not agree with the structure of offers. Option E, did not it?, shifts the sentence into past time, which is incorrect for the general present truth expressed in Life offers myriad choices. Only option C correctly uses does not it? as a negative tag to match the simple present main clause. Common Pitfalls: Students often become confused about which auxiliary to use in a question tag and may choose any verb that seems to agree with the subject. However, question tags must reflect the same tense and auxiliary pattern as the main clause. Another common error is forgetting the polarity rule and selecting a positive tag after a positive statement. To avoid these problems, first identify the subject and tense of the main clause, decide whether it is positive or negative, and then form the tag accordingly. Regular practice with different sentence types will make this process automatic. Final Answer: The correct question tag is: Life offers myriad choices, does not it?

Question 12

In this English grammar sentence improvement question, you are given the sentence: The proposal was full of if and but that I seriously doubted whether the stadium would ever be built. The underlined phrase if and but is awkward and does not follow …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests knowledge of idiomatic English and correct pluralisation when we name words as objects. The sentence talks about a proposal that is full of conditions and objections, and the underlined expression uses the common idiom that refers to many doubts and excuses. Examinations in English usage often check whether learners know the correct form of fixed expressions like this one, because they are very common in spoken and written language and are important for natural sounding communication. Given Data / Assumptions: The original sentence is about a proposal that contains many conditions and reservations. The underlined phrase is if and but. The answer choices offer different plural forms of the words if and but, plus a No improvement option. The task is to choose the most idiomatic and grammatically acceptable improvement. Concept / Approach: When we talk about words themselves, we treat them as countable nouns. In English, we normally form plurals of simple nouns by adding s at the end, so if becomes ifs and but becomes buts. The idiom full of ifs and buts is a set expression that means full of doubts, reservations, and objections. Native speakers recognise this fixed phrase, so any other spelling or form sounds incorrect or at least non standard. The approach is therefore to identify which option reproduces the recognised idiom correctly and keeps both words in the plural form to show that there are many conditions and objections in the proposal. Step-by-Step Solution: First, read the entire sentence and understand that it describes a proposal that contains many conditions and reservations. Second, focus on the underlined phrase if and but and notice that it is referring to the words themselves rather than to their normal conjunction use. Third, recall that the accepted idiom in English is full of ifs and buts when we speak about many excuses or objections. Fourth, evaluate each option to see which one matches this idiomatic form without adding unnecessary letters or using a singular where a plural is needed. Finally, select the option that uses ifs and buts in the standard plural form, which correctly expresses the idea of many conditions and objections. Verification / Alternative check: A useful check is to imagine how native speakers commonly say this in real life. People normally say There were too many ifs and buts in his explanation or I do not want any ifs and buts about this decision. In each case the plural forms ifs and buts are used. You can also consult a good learner dictionary or corpus and search for the phrase full of ifs and buts, which will confirm that this is the standard idiomatic expression. Options that use mixed number, such as a singular but, or that use altered forms like butts, do not appear in standard references for this idiom. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A uses ifs and but, which mixes a plural with a singular form and therefore does not correctly show that both kinds of conditions and objections are many in number. Option B uses ifs and butts, but the word butts normally refers to things like cigarette ends or the backs of animals and has a completely different meaning from the conjunction but, so it is not suitable here. Option D suggests No improvement, but the original phrase if and but is not the fixed idiom and sounds unnatural, so it should be improved. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes think that words like if and but cannot take normal plural forms, or they may feel that adding s looks strange. Another common mistake is to write the idiom with an apostrophe, such as if's and but's, which is not standard in modern English. Some candidates may also be distracted by humorous or near homophone options like butts, which can look plausible at first sight but change the meaning completely. It is important to remember that when we talk about words themselves as items, we normally treat them just like regular countable nouns and apply normal plural rules. Final Answer: The correct improvement uses the standard idiomatic expression that describes a proposal full of conditions and objections, so the best choice is "ifs" and "buts".

Question 13

In this English grammar sentence improvement question, consider the sentence We insist on you leaving the meeting immediately, where the underlined part you leaving may not follow the most natural and grammatically correct pattern after the preposit…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks the correct grammatical pattern after the verb insist when it is followed by a preposition and a verbal noun. In careful written English, some verbs and prepositions are followed by a gerund with a possessive form rather than a simple object pronoun. The sentence expresses strong insistence that someone leave a meeting at once, and the task is to choose the structure that best matches standard educated usage in this context. Given Data / Assumptions: The base sentence is We insist on you leaving the meeting immediately. The underlined portion is you leaving. The options offer structures with you to leave, your leaving, you leave, and No improvement. The register of the test is formal standard English, not casual conversation. Concept / Approach: After prepositions such as on, of, for, and in, English normally uses a gerund form, which is the ing form of a verb acting as a noun. When a person is linked to that gerund, many style guides and grammar books recommend a possessive form, as in your leaving, his coming, or their arriving. The construction insist on can also take that pattern. Therefore, we look for an option that respects both the use of the preposition on with a gerund and, in formal English, a possessive determiner before the gerund. The correct answer should sound natural in a formal context and should not break basic rules of verb complementation. Step-by-Step Solution: First, identify that insist on is followed by a verbal phrase that functions like a noun, describing the action of leaving. Second, recall that after a preposition we typically use a gerund, so the core form should be leaving and not leave or to leave. Third, recognise that in formal English a possessive determiner is usually placed before a gerund to show ownership of the action, so we prefer your leaving over you leaving. Fourth, compare the options and note that only your leaving combines the possessive determiner with the gerund in a way that fits insist on. Finally, confirm that the revised sentence We insist on your leaving the meeting immediately sounds grammatically standard and clear. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can compare similar structures: We object to his smoking here or They approved of our going early. In each case, a preposition is followed by a possessive determiner plus a gerund. Grammar references often give examples such as I insist on your staying for dinner in formal contexts. Modern spoken English sometimes allows you leaving, but formal examination standards still tend to prefer the possessive form. Because this is an exam question that usually follows traditional grammar norms, your leaving matches the expected pattern better than the casual alternative. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, you to leave, tries to use an infinitive after a preposition, which is ungrammatical in English because prepositions are normally followed by gerunds or noun phrases, not to plus base verb. Option C, you leave, uses a bare verb form after a preposition, which again does not follow the standard preposition plus gerund rule and therefore sounds incorrect in careful usage. Option D, No improvement, would accept the original you leaving, which is more informal and not the most accurate answer in a formal test setting. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse patterns after verbs like insist, suggest, or recommend, because these verbs can sometimes take different structures, such as insist that he leave or insist on his leaving. Mixing the two patterns, for example insist on he leave, leads to errors. Another common problem is forgetting that prepositions must be followed by a gerund or noun phrase, not by a full infinitive. Learners also often overlook the possessive before a gerund in formal English and default to object pronouns, which exam setters use as traps. Final Answer: The best and most formally correct improvement uses a possessive determiner before the gerund after the preposition on, so the correct choice is your leaving.

Question 14

In this English grammar sentence improvement item, you are given the sentence The reason why the magazine sells so well is because it is written in a pleasant style, which contains an underlined expression that may be redundant. Choose the alternati…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on the correct way to link a reason clause with the word reason in English. Examinations often test the common error of using both why and because together in the same clause, which creates redundancy. The sentence talks about why a magazine sells well, and the underlined part is is because. The goal is to choose the connector that makes the sentence grammatically correct and stylistically clean. Given Data / Assumptions: The original sentence is The reason why the magazine sells so well is because it is written in a pleasant style. The structure reason why ... is because is suspected to be faulty. The options suggest for, since, that, and No improvement. The context is formal standard English suitable for examinations and textbooks. Concept / Approach: In English, the noun reason can be followed by different structures, but we should avoid redundancy. The pattern the reason is that is considered correct, and so is the reason why is, but combining why and because together often creates a double expression of cause. The phrase reason why already contains the idea of cause, and because introduces cause again, so standard usage avoids putting them together in this way. Therefore, we look for an option that replaces because with a more suitable linking word, turning the clause into a clear complement of the verb is without repeating the sense of cause unnecessarily. Step-by-Step Solution: First, identify the core structure the reason why the magazine sells so well is because it is written in a pleasant style. Second, notice that both why and because refer to the idea of reason, so the phrase may sound awkward and redundant. Third, recall that a standard alternative is the reason why the magazine sells so well is that it is written in a pleasant style. Fourth, check the answer choices and see that using that after is solves the problem by introducing a complement clause rather than another explicit causal conjunction. Finally, confirm that the revised sentence is smoother and acceptable to exam level grammar: The reason why the magazine sells so well is that it is written in a pleasant style. Verification / Alternative check: You can test the sentence by removing why and keeping because, which gives The reason the magazine sells so well is because it is written in a pleasant style. Many modern style guides still view reason is because as undesirable. On the other hand, The reason the magazine sells so well is that it is written in a pleasant style is widely accepted. Grammar references frequently recommend the structure the reason is that rather than the reason is because. Searching reliable corpora or usage guides will confirm that the pattern reason is that is safe and standard in formal prose. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, for, would give the reason why the magazine sells so well is for it is written in a pleasant style, which is ungrammatical because for cannot directly introduce a finite clause in this way. Option B, since, would produce is since it is written in a pleasant style, which also sounds clumsy; since is more natural at the beginning of a sentence and not after the verb is in this specific structure. Option D, No improvement, keeps the original redundancy and goes against recommended formal usage, so it is not the best answer. Common Pitfalls: A frequent learner mistake is to combine several causal expressions together, such as the reason is because, or the reason is due to because, which all repeat the same idea. Another pitfall is to assume that conversational patterns automatically count as correct in examinations, even though exam boards often follow more conservative grammar rules. Learners should train themselves to recognise that the reason is that is an accepted pattern and that adding why or because in the same structure may be marked as wrong in many tests. Final Answer: The redundant and less acceptable combination is because should be replaced with a simple complementiser that, so the correct choice is that.

Question 15

In this English sentence improvement problem, you must correct the structure of the sentence The girl to whom he got married to is an actress, where the underlined phrase contains an unnecessary preposition. Select the option that produces a grammat…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines correct verb and preposition usage with marry. Many learners confuse patterns like marry, get married, and be married, and they may add an unnecessary preposition after the verb. The sentence The girl to whom he got married to is an actress contains a repetition of the preposition to, which makes the structure ungrammatical. You have to choose the option that removes this fault and results in standard English usage. Given Data / Assumptions: The original sentence is The girl to whom he got married to is an actress. The underlined part is got married to. The options include got married with, got married, got betrothed in, and No improvement. The intended meaning is that he married that girl and she is an actress. Concept / Approach: In English, marry can be used transitively as marry someone or in the phrase get married to someone. When the indirect object is already introduced by to whom, we do not repeat the preposition after the verb. The combination to whom and to after got married creates a double preposition which is incorrect. The best solution is to keep to whom and remove the second to, so the verb phrase becomes got married and the single preposition to is already present in the relative pronoun phrase to whom. Therefore, we search for the option that simply uses got married without any extra preposition. Step-by-Step Solution: First, separate the sentence into the relative clause to whom he got married to and the main clause is an actress. Second, observe that to whom already contains the preposition to, indicating the person he married. Third, notice that the verb phrase got married to repeats the preposition to, which leads to an awkward and incorrect structure to whom he got married to. Fourth, recall that when the relative pronoun includes the preposition, the verb usually stands without another preposition, so the correct structure is to whom he got married. Finally, see that the option got married gives the sentence The girl to whom he got married is an actress, which is grammatically sound. Verification / Alternative check: You can compare other correct examples such as The man to whom she is engaged is a doctor or The person to whom I spoke was very polite. In these sentences, the preposition appears only once with the relative pronoun. If you add another preposition after the verb, the result sounds unnatural. In addition, many grammar books present get married to someone or marry someone as standard forms, and when a relative clause already holds the preposition, it is not repeated. Reading similar structures in reliable texts will confirm that to whom he got married is the accepted pattern. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, got married with, is incorrect because English does not usually use married with to indicate the partner; married with commonly appears in phrases like married with two children, which has a different meaning. Option C, got betrothed in, changes the meaning, because betrothed refers to engagement, not marriage, and the preposition in does not fit this context. Option D, No improvement, would keep the redundant to and preserve the error to whom he got married to, which the exam expects you to correct. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is mixing the patterns marry someone and get married to someone, which leads to hybrid forms like get married with someone or marry with someone. Another pitfall is believing that every verb of relationship necessarily requires a preposition, which is not true in English. Learners should memorise the basic correct patterns and then notice how relative pronouns with prepositions work, so that they do not repeat the same preposition twice in the same clause. Final Answer: The correct and natural structure removes the repeated preposition and uses a simple verb phrase, so the best choice is got married.

Question 16

In this English sentence improvement question, you must choose the most appropriate word to replace the underlined verb in the sentence The fugitive was finally stopped at the airport, so that the sentence accurately describes the legal act of catch…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests vocabulary choice in a legal or police context. The sentence refers to a fugitive, which is a person who has escaped from custody or is running away to avoid arrest. The current verb stopped is too general and does not fully capture the idea of formal capture or arrest. You need to select the verb that clearly expresses the action taken by the authorities when they catch such a person at an airport or any other checkpoint. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence frame is The fugitive was finally stopped at the airport. The underlined word is stopped, which needs a more precise synonym. The options are compromised, comprehended, apprehended, and No improvement. The context is law enforcement and the capture of a person on the run. Concept / Approach: We need a verb that specifically means to arrest or capture someone who is trying to escape. General verbs like stop can apply to many situations, but examination questions often expect more precise vocabulary. The word apprehend, used in the passive form apprehended, is a standard legal term for catching and taking someone into custody. The other options relate to very different meanings and do not match the legal context implied by fugitive. Therefore, our approach is to match the specialised meaning in the sentence with the correct verb from the options. Step-by-Step Solution: First, focus on the word fugitive and recall its meaning as a person who is escaping from law or punishment. Second, ask what normally happens when authorities catch a fugitive at an airport or border, and note that they arrest or apprehend that person. Third, examine each option and check which one has the meaning of arrest or capture in a legal context. Fourth, recognise that apprehended is widely used in news reports and legal writing to describe the act of catching a fugitive. Finally, replace stopped with apprehended to produce the improved sentence The fugitive was finally apprehended at the airport. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can imagine a newspaper headline such as Fugitive apprehended at city airport after long chase. This usage sounds completely natural and matches common patterns in English reporting. On the other hand, a headline like Fugitive compromised at the airport or Fugitive comprehended at the airport would sound wrong. Consulting a dictionary confirms that apprehend includes the sense of arrest or capture, especially of a criminal, which fits perfectly with fugitive in the sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, compromised, means to endanger, weaken, or reach a settlement by giving up something. It does not describe the physical act of arresting a person. Option B, comprehended, means understood, which is about mental grasp rather than physical capture, so it does not fit the context of catching a fugitive. Option D, No improvement, keeps the vague verb stopped, which fails to convey the formal, legal sense of arrest that the sentence implies and that the test is checking. Common Pitfalls: Learners often rely on very general verbs like stop, get, or do, which can work in many casual sentences but are not precise enough for examination standards. Another common problem is choosing words that look similar but have different meanings, such as confuse comprehend with apprehend. Paying attention to common collocations in news language, like apprehend a suspect or arrest a fugitive, helps in building accurate vocabulary for such questions. Final Answer: The verb that correctly expresses the act of arresting and taking a fugitive into custody is apprehended.

Question 17

In this sentence improvement question on English usage, consider the sentence He performed below par in the examination, where the underlined phrase below par is being checked for correctness as an idiom that describes poor performance. Choose the o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests understanding of a common English idiom used to describe performance that is worse than expected. The sentence He performed below par in the examination uses below par as an idiomatic phrase. Many exam questions examine whether learners can recognise correct idioms and avoid being misled by similar looking but incorrect forms. The challenge is to decide if the phrase below par is already correct or if another option expresses the idea more accurately in standard English. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence describes a person's performance in an examination. The underlined expression is below par. The options are par below, poorly, below parr, and No improvement. The intended meaning is that his performance was not up to the usual or expected standard. Concept / Approach: The idiom below par originally comes from golf, where par is the standard number of strokes expected for a hole. In general English, below par now means worse than the usual or expected level, and it is widely used to describe health, performance, or quality. When an idiom is already correct, Exams often include misleading alternatives that look similar or offer simple synonyms, but idioms have fixed forms that should not be changed. Our approach is therefore to recognise below par as a correct idiom and avoid options that rearrange the words or alter the spelling. Step-by-Step Solution: First, understand that the sentence describes examination performance that did not meet expectations. Second, recall that below par is a recognised idiom meaning not as good as usual or not satisfactory. Third, examine each alternative and check whether any option improves clarity without breaking idiomatic accuracy. Fourth, notice that par below is not a known expression, and below parr is simply a misspelt version of par. Fifth, realise that poorly, while close in meaning, does not capture the full idiomatic flavour of the original, and the test is more likely to reward recognition of the correct idiom than replacement with a plain adverb. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider sentences like I am feeling below par today or Her performance this season has been below par. These are standard and common uses in newspapers, magazines, and conversations. Dictionaries list below par as an idiomatic phrase meaning not up to the usual standard. In contrast, par below does not appear as a standard phrase, and the spelling parr refers to a young salmon, which is clearly unrelated. Therefore, the safe and correct choice is to keep the original idiom unchanged and select No improvement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, par below, reverses the word order and destroys the idiomatic structure, making the phrase unnatural and confusing. Option B, poorly, is a general adverb that expresses weak performance, but the question type specifically focuses on a sentence improvement problem where the original idiom is already correct; replacing it needlessly removes a natural and expressive phrase. Option C, below parr, introduces a spelling error that changes the word into something unrelated to the intended meaning, so it is clearly wrong. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes over correct sentences because they expect every underlined part to be wrong, but exam setters often include items where the best answer is No improvement. Another pitfall is focusing only on meaning and ignoring idiomatic form, which leads candidates to choose a plain synonym even when a standard idiom is already accurate. Building familiarity with common idioms and trusting well known expressions can prevent these errors. Final Answer: The phrase below par is already a correct and natural idiom that means his performance was not up to the expected standard, so the correct choice is No improvement.

Question 18

In this English usage question on sentence improvement, consider the sentence She was unhappy even after she married into an accommodative and caring family, in which the underlined verb phrase describes her continuing emotional state. Select the op…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines subtle choices in vocabulary and aspect when describing an ongoing state. The sentence refers to a woman who did not become happy even after she married into a caring family. The underlined part uses was unhappy, which is grammatically correct but may not capture the idea of continuation as strongly as another option. You must select the expression that best shows that her unhappiness persisted after the marriage and that fits naturally in formal English. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence context is emotional state before and after marriage. The underlined expression is was unhappy. The options are remained unhappy, continued her sadness, existed in unhappiness, and No improvement. The goal is to choose the most natural and precise description of the continuing state. Concept / Approach: Verbs like remain and continue are often used to express a state that persists over time. Although was unhappy is correct, the exam is checking whether any alternative gives a more precise and idiomatic expression for the idea that her unhappiness did not change even after marriage. The phrase remained unhappy is a common collocation in English and clearly highlights that her emotional state stayed the same. Other options sound awkward or are not usual combinations in natural usage. Therefore, the approach is to pick the alternative that best fits standard collocations and emphasises continuity. Step-by-Step Solution: First, understand that the key idea is that she was unhappy before marriage and that this unhappiness did not disappear after she joined an accommodative and caring family. Second, recognise that the exam often prefers verbs that explicitly signal continuation of a state, and remained is a typical choice here. Third, compare the options and check them against standard English collocations, for example remained unhappy is common and clear. Fourth, see that continued her sadness does not sound natural because sadness is not usually something we continue in this way, and existed in unhappiness sounds clumsy and overly abstract. Fifth, choose remained unhappy as the best alternative that preserves the intended meaning and improves the style. Verification / Alternative check: To check, create similar sentences such as He remained unhappy despite getting a promotion or She remained unhappy even after the problem was solved. These examples sound normal and are listed in many language resources. On the other hand, He continued his sadness or She existed in unhappiness are not forms that native speakers commonly use. Although was unhappy is not wrong, exam style often rewards a more precise verb when it is offered among the choices, and remained unhappy clearly does this job. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, continued her sadness, treats sadness as an object of continue in an unnatural way; English usually says continued to be sad or remained sad, not continued her sadness. Option C, existed in unhappiness, is grammatically possible but sounds very heavy and abstract for ordinary narrative style, and it is not a common collocation. Option D, No improvement, ignores the fact that remained unhappy gives a more precise sense of ongoing state, which is likely what the exam setter wants to highlight. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes think that any grammatically correct expression is automatically the best choice, but sentence improvement questions are about selecting the most natural and idiomatic form. Another pitfall is focusing only on vocabulary meaning without checking how words combine in real usage. Paying attention to common phrases such as remain unhappy, remain calm, remain silent, and so on can help in choosing more native like expressions in exams. Final Answer: The option that most naturally and clearly shows that her unhappy state continued after marriage is remained unhappy.

Question 19

In this English sentence improvement question on vocabulary, examine the sentence The Internet has totally changed the world like no other technology before it, in which the underlined verb may be too weak for the scale of impact being described. Ch…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on choosing the most appropriate verb to describe the enormous impact of the Internet on the modern world. The original sentence uses the general verb changed, which is correct but relatively mild. Examinations often ask candidates to replace such general words with more powerful and precise alternatives that better reflect the scale of the phenomenon. Here, the Internet is described as a technology unlike any other before it, so the chosen verb should indicate a very dramatic and wide ranging transformation. Given Data / Assumptions: The base sentence is The Internet has totally changed the world like no other technology before it. The underlined verb is changed. The options are revolutionised, reformed, radicalised, and No improvement. The context is the global social, economic, and informational impact of the Internet. Concept / Approach: The word revolutionise means to bring about a complete or very great change in something, often in a way that alters its fundamental structure or functioning. It is commonly used for major technological and scientific developments that transform society. Reform, in contrast, suggests gradual improvement, particularly in laws, institutions, or social practices. Radicalise is used for making people adopt extreme political or religious views and is not suitable here. Therefore, the approach is to match the magnitude of the effect described in the sentence with a verb that expresses a sweeping transformation, which clearly points to revolutionised. Step-by-Step Solution: First, identify the key idea in the sentence, which is that the Internet has had a unique and powerful effect on the world. Second, consider the semantic strength of changed and decide whether it fully reflects the description like no other technology before it. Third, evaluate each alternative verb: revolutionised, reformed, and radicalised, in terms of meaning and typical usage. Fourth, recognise that revolutionised is the standard verb used for technologies that transform communication, business, and daily life on a global scale, as the Internet has done. Fifth, substitute revolutionised into the sentence to check naturalness: The Internet has totally revolutionised the world like no other technology before it, which is clear and powerful. Verification / Alternative check: To confirm, think of similar statements found in books or articles, such as The printing press revolutionised the spread of knowledge or Mobile phones have revolutionised communication. In each case, revolutionised expresses sweeping change. Reformed usually appears in contexts like reformed the legal system or reformed the tax structure, which involve improvement but not necessarily the same scale of transformation. Radicalised is clearly associated with political or ideological extremism and would be inappropriate in a neutral technology context. Therefore, revolutionised is the best choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, reformed, implies improvement or modification of laws or institutions but does not capture the idea of a fundamental transformation of almost every aspect of global life. Option C, radicalised, has a strong negative and political meaning, as it refers to making individuals or groups adopt extreme views, so it cannot describe the general positive technological impact of the Internet. Option D, No improvement, ignores the opportunity to use a verb that is far more precise and expressive, and that matches common collocations in discussions about major technological advances. Common Pitfalls: Learners may sometimes stay with safe general verbs like change because they are widely used, but sentence improvement questions reward awareness of richer vocabulary. Another pitfall is misunderstanding radicalised and thinking it simply means made radical or powerful in a neutral way, whereas in normal usage it is strongly tied to extreme ideologies. Developing a good sense of collocations such as revolutionise an industry, revolutionise communication, and revolutionise the world helps in selecting the best word. Final Answer: The verb that most accurately and powerfully describes the deep and far reaching impact of the Internet on the modern world is revolutionised.

Question 20

In this English vocabulary and sentence improvement question, you are given the definition To emend a piece of writing means to remove mistakes from it, where the underlined phrase remove mistakes from it may be replaced by a single precise verb. Ch…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests understanding of a specific vocabulary item and the ability to replace a descriptive phrase with a precise verb. The sentence gives a definition of emend in relation to a piece of writing and asks you to identify the best single word equivalent for remove mistakes from it. Examinations often include questions where a longer explanation can be replaced by an exact verb, and the challenge is to select the word that matches the technical nuance of the term emend in the context of written text. Given Data / Assumptions: The base statement is To emend a piece of writing means to remove mistakes from it. The underlined phrase is remove mistakes from it. The options offered are amend, edit, rephrase, and No improvement. The focus is on the meaning of emend as used in reference to written material. Concept / Approach: The verb emend is closely related to amend and has the specialised meaning of correcting errors in a text, often by making scholarly or careful changes. Amend in the context of writing means to make improvements, usually by correcting mistakes or updating content. Edit, while also connected, covers a broader process that includes arranging, selecting, and preparing material for publication, not just removing mistakes. Rephrase means to express the same idea in different words, which does not necessarily involve error correction. Therefore, the approach is to find the verb that is closest in core meaning to emend, which is amend. Step-by-Step Solution: First, focus on the key idea that emend involves making corrections to a written text. Second, evaluate amend and recall that in many formal contexts it means to correct or improve a document, law, or piece of writing. Third, consider edit and note that it includes a wide range of operations beyond simple correction, such as cutting, rearranging, and sometimes rewriting material. Fourth, examine rephrase and see that it deals with expressing content differently without necessarily fixing errors. Fifth, conclude that amend is the closest match to the core process of removing mistakes and improving accuracy in a text. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can look at typical uses in dictionaries and style guides. Emend is often defined as to correct or improve a text, especially by removing errors. Amend is defined as to make changes in order to correct or improve, particularly in documents and laws. A book editor might emend a manuscript by amending certain lines or passages. Edit, although related, describes the whole process of preparing material for publication, and a person can edit a text without personally emending every small error. Therefore, amend as a replacement for remove mistakes from it gives a tighter, more precise definition of emend. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, edit, is too broad, since editing involves selection, organisation, and sometimes rewriting, not just the act of correcting mistakes. Option C, rephrase, is about changing the wording, sometimes for clarity, but it does not always imply the removal of errors and is therefore not a direct equivalent for emend. Option D, No improvement, would keep the longer descriptive phrase, which is acceptable but not as concise or technical as using a single accurate verb. Common Pitfalls: Learners may confuse emend and amend because they sound similar, or they may instinctively choose edit because it is a familiar word related to writing. However, exam questions at this level expect recognition of subtle distinctions. Remember that emend and amend are near synonyms in the context of correcting texts, whereas edit is a wider process and rephrase is focused on wording change rather than correction of mistakes. Final Answer: The verb that best replaces remove mistakes from it in the definition of emend is amend.

English Questions