Question 1

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing crowds of commuters at railway stations.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your command of natural English expression when describing very large crowds, a common theme in reading comprehension and sentence improvement tasks. The focus is on how to express the idea that huge numbers of commuters, comparable to the population of a small nation, pass through railway stations every day. Given Data / Assumptions: Four alternative sentences describe crowds at railway stations. All refer to people commuting from faraway or distant places. Each sentence tries to compare the size of the crowd to that of a small nation. You must find the sentence that is grammatically or stylistically unacceptable in standard English. Assume formal written style suitable for essays, reports, or examinations. Concept / Approach: The approach is to evaluate each option for grammar, word order, and natural collocations. English allows various ways to express numerical comparisons, such as in numbers comparable to those of a small nation or as many people as in a small nation. Expressions like numerical magnitude of small nations are extremely awkward and not used in idiomatic English. We also look at whether the use of passive verbs like are poured out is acceptable or unnecessarily clumsy. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read option A. The structure as many people as those in a small nation can be seen at stations is somewhat wordy but grammatically acceptable and clearly expresses the comparison. Step 2: Read option B. Railway stations pour out commuters from faraway places every day in numbers comparable to those of a small nation uses pour out metaphorically and forms a clear and correct sentence. Step 3: Read option D. Every day, stations are crowded with commuters from distant places in numbers comparable to those of a small nation is also well formed and natural. Step 4: Read option C. People of a numerical magnitude of small nations commuting from faraway places are poured out by the stations every day is clumsy and ungrammatical. The phrase people of a numerical magnitude of small nations is not standard, and the passive are poured out by the stations sounds very unnatural. Step 5: Conclude that only option C clearly violates natural English usage and is therefore the incorrect sentence. Verification / Alternative check: You can try simplifying each sentence to test its structure. In option C, if you reduce the modifiers, you get people of a numerical magnitude of small nations are poured out by the stations, which still sounds unnatural. In contrast, simplified versions of the other options, such as stations pour out commuters every day in huge numbers, remain clear and idiomatic. This confirms that option C is the odd one out. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because as many people as those in a small nation is a valid pattern of comparison, even if a little heavy. Option B is acceptable because pour out commuters is a common metaphor and the comparison in numbers comparable to those of a small nation is correct. Option D is acceptable because are crowded with commuters and in numbers comparable to those of a small nation are both grammatically sound phrases. Only option C uses an unidiomatic and confusing phrase numerical magnitude of small nations, so it is the incorrect one. Common Pitfalls: Learners often focus only on subject verb agreement and overlook awkward noun phrases. Even though every verb appears to agree in number in option C, the overall phrase is not natural English. Another pitfall is assuming that all complex or long sentences are automatically correct in formal writing, but examinations often reward clarity and natural collocations over unnecessary complexity. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option C. People of a numerical magnitude of small nations commuting from faraway places are poured out by the stations every day.

Question 2

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing a triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item examines your ability to recognise complete sentence structure in complex literary style. All the sentences refer to a triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides, and you must identify which one fails to form a grammatically complete and coherent sentence in formal English. Given Data / Assumptions: Four alternatives talk about a triptych made of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides. Each option tries to express that this triptych sets the writer apart from a reporter. You are asked to pick the grammatically incorrect sentence. Assume a formal, essay like register where complete clauses and correct word order are required. The core meaning about the writer and reporter should be preserved in the correct sentences. Concept / Approach: A grammatically complete English sentence needs at least a subject and a finite verb. In literary prose, word order can be flexible, but there must still be a clear clause structure. Options A, B and C present clear clauses with subjects such as the result, what results, or a triptych and verbs such as is and sets or setting. Option D, however, omits the finite verb and ends up as a fragment, which is not acceptable as a complete sentence in formal writing. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: In option A, the result is the subject and is is the verb, while the relative clause that ostensibly sets the writer apart from the reporter is correctly attached to triptych. Step 2: In option B, what results is the subject phrase, followed by the verb is and the complement a triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides, so the sentence is complete. Step 3: In option C, a triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides is the result is a clear clause, and the phrase ostensibly setting the writer apart from the reporter functions as a participial phrase giving extra information. Step 4: In option D, the words Setting the writer apart from the reporter ostensibly the triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides appear, but there is no finite verb linked to a subject. Step 5: Because option D lacks a main verb like is or sets, it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence. Step 6: Therefore option D is the grammatically incorrect sentence that you must select. Verification / Alternative check: You can attempt to read each option aloud as a standalone statement. Options A, B and C sound complete and can be followed by a full stop. Option D creates a sense of waiting for something more, as if the sentence has been cut off. If you try to fix it, you will instinctively add a verb such as are or is, confirming that the original version is incomplete. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because it clearly links the result to a triptych and uses a correct relative clause. Option B is acceptable because what results is a standard structure for emphasising outcome and is grammatically correct. Option C is acceptable because the participial phrase ostensibly setting the writer apart from the reporter is correctly formed and attached. Option D is the only option without a finite verb, so it is the incorrect sentence. Common Pitfalls: Many students are distracted by long noun phrases like triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides and overlook the basic need for a subject and verb. Another pitfall is assuming that unusual word order always indicates error. In advanced writing, inversions do occur, but they still include a finite verb, which option D does not. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option D. Setting the writer apart from the reporter ostensibly the triptych of travelogues, diary entries and philosophical asides.

Question 3

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing the use of state issued currencies in early dark web transactions.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question evaluates your ability to choose the grammatically correct sentence in a modern technological context involving dark web transactions. It focuses on correct preposition choice, natural word combinations, and the way we talk about using currencies to carry out transactions in formal English. Given Data / Assumptions: All four sentences mention dark web transactions and state issued currencies. The time frame is the early phase of dark web activity when legal currencies were used. You must identify the grammatically incorrect option. Assume the context is a formal article or passage about digital crime and online markets. The core idea is that legal state currencies were used to carry out transactions on the dark web. Concept / Approach: The standard collocation in English is to carry out transactions or to use a currency to carry out transactions. Prepositions like in, on and between must be used logically with nouns such as transactions or web. Also, dark web is normally treated as a singular space, not as dark webs. The strategy is to eliminate sentences that misuse prepositions or create unnatural phrases such as carry in the transactions between the dark webs. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check option A. Dark web transactions were initially carried out using legal state issued currencies is grammatically sound. The phrase carried out using is a correct collocation. Step 2: Check option B. In the early days, dark web transactions were carried out using legal state issued currencies is also correct, with clear time reference in the early days. Step 3: Check option C. Legal state issued currencies were used initially to carry out transactions on the dark web is again grammatically correct and uses the idiomatic phrase to carry out transactions. Step 4: Check option D. The legal state issued currencies were used to initially carry in the transactions between the dark webs is problematic. Step 5: The phrase carry in the transactions is incorrect, because the standard pattern is carry out transactions. In addition, between the dark webs is illogical, since there is normally one dark web, and between requires two or more distinct things. Step 6: Therefore, option D is the only sentence that is grammatically and collocationally incorrect. Verification / Alternative check: Try simplifying option D. If you write currencies were used to carry in transactions, it still sounds wrong. Replacing carry in with carry out immediately improves it, confirming that the preposition in is not acceptable here. Similarly, changing between the dark webs to on the dark web would fix the latter part, reinforcing that the original phrase is flawed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because carried out using legal state issued currencies is a standard way to describe how transactions were executed. Option B is acceptable because the sentence structure and word order are normal and clearly express time and action. Option C is acceptable because used initially to carry out transactions on the dark web follows standard collocations for finance and online activity. Option D alone misuses carry in and between the dark webs, so it is the incorrect choice. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to ignore small words like prepositions in long sentences. However, in phrasal verbs and fixed expressions, changing a preposition can completely break the grammar. Another pitfall is to accept unusual phrases simply because the topic, such as dark web, feels unfamiliar, but examinations expect standard English regardless of subject matter. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option D. The legal state issued currencies were used to initially carry in the transactions between the dark webs.

Question 4

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing the Trump administration effort to crack down on sanctuary cities.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with political reporting language about the Trump administration and sanctuary cities. The aim is to identify incorrect usage of verbs and prepositions in formal English. Such structures are common in news articles and opinion pieces, making this type of question important for competitive exams that test advanced reading and grammar skills. Given Data / Assumptions: All four sentences discuss efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are those that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Three options are intended to be grammatically acceptable, and one is incorrect. You are required to pick the grammatically incorrect sentence. Assume a formal journalistic or analytical tone is required. Concept / Approach: The key grammar point here is the correct use of the verb comply and the pattern comply with. The preposition with is fixed in this usage. The question also tests the correct structure of passive sentences and the acceptable use of phrasal verbs such as crack down on. Your approach should be to check phrasal verbs, passive constructions, and the object of comply. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Look at option A. It uses is intensifying its efforts to crack down on so called sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration authorities. The phrasal verb crack down on and the phrase comply with are both correct. Step 2: Option B states Efforts were intensified by the Trump administration to crack down on sanctuary cities that refused to comply with federal immigration authorities. This is a correct passive sentence and uses comply with. Step 3: Option C reads The so called sanctuary cities that refused to abide by federal immigration authorities were to be cracked down on by the intensified efforts of the Trump administration. Though slightly heavy, it is structurally acceptable and uses cracked down on correctly. Step 4: Option D says Federal immigration authorities must be complied into by sanctuary cities if the efforts of the Trump administration must be intensified. Step 5: The verb comply never takes into as a preposition. The standard pattern is comply with a law, rule, or authority. The phrase complied into is ungrammatical. Step 6: Therefore, option D is the grammatically incorrect sentence that must be selected. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, mentally correct option D. If you change it to Federal immigration authorities must be complied with by sanctuary cities, it becomes acceptable, confirming that the original version with complied into is wrong. This quick substitution technique helps confirm that the error lies in the choice of preposition, not in the overall idea. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because crack down on and comply with are both correct in political reporting language. Option B is acceptable because the passive construction Efforts were intensified by is grammatically sound and clear. Option C is acceptable though wordy, because cracked down on and abide by are standard expressions and the sentence has correct structure. Option D misuses complied into, which is not an accepted pattern, so it is the incorrect sentence. Common Pitfalls: Students often overlook small prepositions in long political sentences and focus only on big nouns like administration or authorities. Another common mistake is assuming that all passive forms are awkward or wrong; in fact, the exam often focuses on subtle verb pattern errors rather than the mere presence of passive voice. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option D. Federal immigration authorities must be complied into by sanctuary cities if the efforts of the Trump administration must be intensified.

Question 5

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect because of a dangling or misplaced modifier describing a woman running for a bus and losing her documents.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on dangling and misplaced modifiers, a classic error type in English grammar questions. The situation described is simple, but the wording can make it appear as if the wrong thing is performing the action. You must notice which sentence incorrectly suggests that the bag, and not the woman, was racing for the bus. Given Data / Assumptions: All four options describe a woman running or racing for a bus. Her bag opens, and as a result, the documents are lost. You must choose the option that is grammatically incorrect. The key issue is who is doing the action described by the initial phrase Racing for the bus or As she raced for the bus. Assume standard rules against dangling modifiers in formal writing. Concept / Approach: A participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence, such as Racing for the bus, should clearly modify the subject that immediately follows it. If the noun that follows is not the one doing the action, the modifier is said to be dangling or misplaced, which is treated as an error in formal English. The approach is to check each sentence to see whether the opening phrase logically and grammatically refers to the subject that comes next. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read option A. As she raced for the bus, her bag flew open and all the documents were lost. The subject after the comma is her bag, but the clause starts with as she raced, so it is clear that she is the one racing. This sentence is acceptable. Step 2: Read option B. While she was racing for the bus, her bag flew open and the documents were lost. Again, the clause clearly states she was racing, so the meaning is not confusing. Step 3: Read option D. As she raced for the bus, her bag flew open, causing all the documents to be lost. The introductory clause still explicitly names she as the runner and is grammatically fine. Step 4: Read option C. Racing for the bus, her bag flew open and all the documents were lost. Here, the initial participial phrase Racing for the bus is directly followed by the noun phrase her bag. Step 5: Grammatically, this construction suggests that her bag was racing for the bus, which is illogical. The intended subject, she, is missing after the comma, so the modifier dangles. Step 6: Therefore, option C contains a dangling modifier and is grammatically incorrect. Verification / Alternative check: A good way to verify is to try rewriting option C. If you change it to Racing for the bus, she saw her bag fly open and all the documents were lost, the error disappears, showing that the problem was the missing subject she. Since the original option C does not contain this correction, it remains incorrect, while the other options are acceptable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A explicitly uses she in the introductory clause, so there is no confusion about who is racing. Option B also clearly states she was racing, and the bag is just the subject of the main clause, which is fine. Option D uses a correct introductory clause and then adds a participial phrase causing all the documents to be lost, which clearly refers to the bag flying open. Option C, in contrast, improperly attaches Racing for the bus to her bag, so it is the incorrect sentence. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates read quickly and focus on overall meaning, ignoring the exact grammatical link between clauses. Examinations often exploit this by using logical impossibilities, such as a bag racing for a bus, to test your awareness of dangling modifiers. Remember that in formal English, such structures are treated as errors even if the intended meaning is obvious from context. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option C. Racing for the bus, her bag flew open and all the documents were lost.

Question 6

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing archaeological research in Sarasota documenting more than ten thousand years of seasonal occupation by native people.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests precision in scientific and historical description. All options talk about archaeological research in Sarasota and its findings about seasonal occupation by native people. You must identify the sentence that uses unnatural or incorrect wording, especially with respect to the phrase seasonal occupation and how research is described. Given Data / Assumptions: The topic is archaeological research in Sarasota. The research documents more than ten thousand years of seasonal occupation by native people. You must select the grammatically or stylistically incorrect sentence. The focus is on proper expression in academic style English. Assume the context is a textbook or examination passage about archaeology. Concept / Approach: Good academic writing refers to seasonal occupation of a region by people, not to seasonality in people themselves. We also usually say research in Sarasota or archaeological research in Sarasota, not research of Sarasota. The strategy is to look for incorrect collocations and unnatural noun phrases, even if the basic subject and verb seem fine. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Review option A. Archaeological research in Sarasota documents more than ten thousand years of seasonal occupation by native people. This is a clear and accurate sentence that matches standard academic style. Step 2: Review option B. More than ten thousand years of seasonal occupation by native people have been documented in archaeological research in Sarasota. It correctly uses a passive structure and maintains the idea of seasonal occupation. Step 3: Review option C. Archaeological research carried out in Sarasota has recorded more than ten thousand years of seasonal occupation by native people. This sentence is grammatically sound and idiomatic. Step 4: Review option D. The seasonality in native people has been documented in archaeological research of Sarasota. Step 5: The phrase seasonality in native people wrongly suggests that people themselves are seasonal, which is not the intended meaning. The correct concept is seasonal occupation of an area by people. Step 6: Additionally, archaeological research of Sarasota is less natural than archaeological research in Sarasota. For these reasons, option D is the incorrect sentence. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, try rephrasing option D correctly. A better sentence would be Seasonal occupation by native people has been documented in archaeological research in Sarasota. This corrected version closely resembles options A, B and C, which confirms that the original phrasing in option D is faulty and unidiomatic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because it clearly states that research documents seasonal occupation by people, not seasonality in people. Option B is acceptable because have been documented correctly refers to more than ten thousand years of occupation as a plural idea, and the prepositional phrase in archaeological research in Sarasota is natural. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to ignore subtle shifts in meaning when a single word changes. Seasonality in native people may sound scientific but is conceptually wrong in this context. Another pitfall is focusing only on tense or subject verb agreement and missing awkward prepositional phrases like research of Sarasota, which are not standard in academic English. Final Answer: The grammatically and stylistically incorrect sentence is Option D. The seasonality in native people has been documented in archaeological research of Sarasota.

Question 7

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing how many Japanese cities had tram systems until the 1960s when increased motorization made lines disappear.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem focuses on expressing time relationships clearly in complex sentences. The topic is tram systems in many Japanese cities and how increased motorization during the 1960s caused some lines to disappear. You are asked to identify the sentence that fails to express this timeline in acceptable English. Given Data / Assumptions: The time period is around the 1960s. Many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems before or until increased motorization. Increased motorization caused some lines to disappear. Three options are grammatically acceptable, one is not. You must select the grammatically incorrect sentence about this historical change. Concept / Approach: The main concepts are the correct use of until, when, and after to show the relationship between past conditions and changes. Phrases like until the 1960s, when and in the 1960s are natural ways to refer to the time of transition. However, combinations like after the 1960s until when are ungrammatical and confusing. The approach is to check whether the temporal markers are used in a clear and idiomatic way. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Option A says Many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems until the 1960s, when increased motorization started to make some lines disappear. This clearly shows that the trams existed up to the 1960s and then motorization began to remove lines. It is correct. Step 2: Option B says Until the 1960s, when increased motorization started to make some lines disappear, many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems. This simply reverses the order of clauses but remains correct. Step 3: Option C says Many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems when increased motorization started to make some lines disappear in the 1960s. This indicates that both facts overlapped in time during the 1960s and is grammatically acceptable. Step 4: Option D says Increased motorization started to make some lines disappear after the 1960s until when many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems. Step 5: The phrase after the 1960s until when is not idiomatic English. After and until are being combined in a way that does not make sense, and until when is not a standard connector here. Step 6: Therefore option D is the grammatically incorrect sentence that should be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Try to repair option D. A correct version would be Until the 1960s, many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems, but increased motorization then started to make some lines disappear. The fact that you must remove after and until when to make it work confirms that the original phrasing in option D is wrong. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because until the 1960s, when is a standard way of connecting a time period with the event that follows it. Option B is acceptable because it uses the same phrase until the 1960s, when in a different clause order but with correct grammar. Option C is acceptable because it uses when and in the 1960s to indicate timing and cause without creating a contradiction. Option D is incorrect because after the 1960s until when is an ill formed sequence of prepositions and conjunctions. Common Pitfalls: Many learners fail to notice that a sentence can be incorrect not because of agreement errors, but because of awkward or impossible combinations of time markers. Examiners often test the proper use of until, since, when, and after, especially in historical or process descriptions, so it is important to check how these words work together. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option D. Increased motorization started to make some lines disappear after the 1960s until when many Japanese cities had extensive tram systems.

Question 8

Four sentences are given below as A, B, C and D. Choose the sentence that is grammatically incorrect in describing how railroad beds are designed to drain water away from the tracks.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your understanding of correct adjective and adverb forms, as well as clear technical description. The sentences explain how railroad beds are constructed with rock and gravel so that water drains away from the tracks. You must identify the one sentence whose structure or word choice is not acceptable in standard written English. Given Data / Assumptions: Railroad beds are compared to roadbeds. They are built using rock and gravel to help water drain away. Three of the options are grammatically correct descriptions. One option contains an error in expression and must be chosen. Assume a semi technical, explanatory style similar to a science or engineering passage. Concept / Approach: The main grammar point here is the difference between similar, which is an adjective, and the adverb similarly. When describing how something is designed, we need an adverb or a phrase like designed to be similar to. The expression designed similar to is not standard. The approach is to examine each sentence for correct word form and logical structure in the comparison between railroad beds and roadbeds. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Option A says To drain water away from the tracks, railroad beds, like roadbeds, are designed with a bed of rock and gravel that results in fast drainage from the tracks. This is grammatically sound, although slightly repetitive with from the tracks. Step 2: Option B says Railroad beds, like roadbeds, are designed with a bed of rock and gravel so that water drains quickly away from the tracks. This is clear and idiomatic. Step 3: Option D says Railroad beds, like roadbeds, are designed to drain water away from the tracks, so there is usually a bed of rock and gravel that results in fast drainage. This sentence is also correct and logically ordered. Step 4: Option C states A bed of rock and gravel, called the railroad bed, is designed similar to a roadbed to drain water away from the tracks. Step 5: The phrase is designed similar to a roadbed is wrong because similar is an adjective and needs to modify a noun, not follow a linking verb without to be. We need is designed to be similar to a roadbed or is designed similarly to a roadbed. Step 6: Therefore option C is the grammatically incorrect sentence and must be chosen. Verification / Alternative check: Try repairing option C. If you write A bed of rock and gravel, called the railroad bed, is designed to be similar to a roadbed to drain water away from the tracks, it becomes acceptable and aligns in style with the other options. The fact that you must insert to be to fix it confirms that the original wording had a form error. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is acceptable because it correctly uses are designed with and clearly states the purpose to drain water away from the tracks. Option B is acceptable because so that water drains quickly away from the tracks is a standard way to express purpose and result. Common Pitfalls: Students often overlook differences between adjective and adverb forms, especially when both sound similar in casual speech. Examiners exploit this by creating phrases like designed similar to, which may sound acceptable at first glance but are not correct in formal writing. It is important to check how adjectives and adverbs are used after verbs such as design, feel, or become. Final Answer: The grammatically incorrect sentence is Option C. A bed of rock and gravel, called the railroad bed, is designed similar to a roadbed to drain water away from the tracks.

Question 9

A shopkeeper mixes two varieties of rice priced at Rs. 40 per kg and Rs. 60 per kg in the ratio 3 : 2 and sells the mixture at a profit of 10 percent. At what price per kilogram does he sell the mixture?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a standard mixture and profit question from quantitative aptitude. A trader mixes two types of rice at different cost prices in a given ratio, finds the average cost of the mixture, and then sells it at a certain profit percent. You need to calculate the selling price per kilogram of the mixture. Given Data / Assumptions: Price of cheaper rice = Rs. 40 per kg. Price of costlier rice = Rs. 60 per kg. Mixing ratio of the two varieties = 3 : 2 (by weight). Profit on the mixture = 10 percent on cost price. We assume perfect mixing and no loss of quantity. Concept / Approach: First, find the weighted average cost price of the mixture using the given ratio. When two items are mixed in the ratio a : b, the cost price of the mixture is (a * price1 + b * price2) / (a + b). Once we know the cost price per kilogram, we add 10 percent profit by multiplying by 1.10 to get the selling price per kilogram. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Let the quantity of Rs. 40 per kg rice be 3 kg and the quantity of Rs. 60 per kg rice be 2 kg, in line with the ratio 3 : 2. Step 2: Total cost of 3 kg of cheaper rice = 3 * 40 = Rs. 120. Step 3: Total cost of 2 kg of costlier rice = 2 * 60 = Rs. 120. Step 4: Total cost of 5 kg mixture = 120 + 120 = Rs. 240. Step 5: Cost price per kg of mixture = total cost / total weight = 240 / 5 = Rs. 48. Step 6: Profit is 10 percent, so selling price per kg = cost price per kg * (1 + 10/100) = 48 * 1.10 = Rs. 52.8. Verification / Alternative check: As a quick check, note that the mixture cost price of Rs. 48 lies between Rs. 40 and Rs. 60, which is reasonable. A 10 percent profit on Rs. 48 must therefore be around Rs. 4.8, giving a selling price of approximately Rs. 52.8. The option Rs. 52.8 matches this estimate, confirming the result. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rs. 56 would correspond to a profit of more than 16 percent on Rs. 48, which is higher than the stated 10 percent. Rs. 58.8 would represent an even larger profit and is inconsistent with the given data. Rs. 54 also corresponds to a profit higher than 10 percent on Rs. 48. Only Rs. 52.8 gives exactly 10 percent profit on the mixture cost price. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to take the simple average of 40 and 60, which is 50, ignoring the ratio 3 : 2. Another mistake is to add 10 directly to the cost price and write 48 + 10 = 58, which is incorrect because 10 percent of 48 is 4.8, not 10. Always calculate percentage profit on the actual cost price. Final Answer: The shopkeeper sells the mixture at Rs. 52.8 per kg.

Question 10

The speed of a boat while travelling downstream is 32 km per hour, whereas its speed while travelling upstream is 28 km per hour. What is the speed of the boat in still water?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic boats and streams question from quantitative aptitude, testing your understanding of relative speed in still water and in a current. You are given the speed of the boat downstream and upstream and are required to find the speed of the boat in still water. Given Data / Assumptions: Downstream speed of the boat = 32 km per hour. Upstream speed of the boat = 28 km per hour. Let the speed of the boat in still water be b km per hour. Let the speed of the stream be s km per hour. Water current is uniform and the same in both directions. Concept / Approach: When a boat moves downstream, the current helps its motion, so downstream speed = b + s. When it moves upstream, the current opposes its motion, so upstream speed = b − s. If we know both downstream and upstream speeds, we can find b by adding the two equations and dividing by 2. This is a standard shortcut: speed in still water = (downstream speed + upstream speed) / 2. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Write the downstream equation: b + s = 32. Step 2: Write the upstream equation: b − s = 28. Step 3: Add the two equations to eliminate s. This gives (b + s) + (b − s) = 32 + 28. Step 4: Simplify the left side to 2b, and the right side to 60, so 2b = 60. Step 5: Divide both sides by 2 to get b = 60 / 2 = 30. Step 6: Therefore, the speed of the boat in still water is 30 km per hour. Verification / Alternative check: You can find the speed of the stream as well to verify the calculation. From b + s = 32 and b = 30, we get s = 2 km per hour. Then b − s = 30 − 2 = 28 km per hour, which matches the given upstream speed. This confirms that b = 30 km per hour is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 27 km per hour would imply an average that is lower than both given speeds, which is impossible when you average 32 and 28. 29 km per hour would correspond to a downstream and upstream combination that does not match the given data. 31 km per hour is also inconsistent, because the average of 32 and 28 can be quickly estimated as exactly 30. Only 30 km per hour is equal to (32 + 28) / 2, so it matches the formula. Common Pitfalls: Some learners mistakenly average 32 and 28 incorrectly, or they try to subtract instead of adding and dividing by 2. Others confuse the formula for speed of the stream, which is (downstream minus upstream) / 2, with the formula for the speed in still water. Remember: sum divided by 2 gives boat speed in still water, difference divided by 2 gives stream speed. Final Answer: The speed of the boat in still water is 30 km per hour.

Question 11

In the following sentence, one part contains a grammatical error. Identify the part that has the error. If the sentence is free from error, select No error. Their luggages which were(A) / kept in the station(B) / restroom lockers, were later retriev…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is an error spotting question that tests your understanding of countable and uncountable nouns and subject verb agreement. The sentence describes luggage kept in station restroom lockers. You must identify which labelled part of the sentence contains the grammatical error. Given Data / Assumptions: Full sentence: Their luggages which were(A) / kept in the station(B) / restroom lockers, were later retrieved.(C) / No error(D). Part A: Their luggages which were. Part B: kept in the station. Part C: restroom lockers, were later retrieved. Part D: No error, which is chosen only if A, B and C are all correct. Assume standard modern English usage for exams. Concept / Approach: The noun luggage is an uncountable noun in standard English. It does not normally take a plural form luggages and is followed by a singular verb when treated as a collective item. For example, we say Her luggage was lost, not Her luggages were lost. The approach is to look for misuse of plural with uncountable nouns or subject verb disagreement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part A: Their luggages which were. The word luggages is incorrect because luggage is normally uncountable and does not take a plural form in this context. Step 2: A correct version would be Their luggage, which was, using the singular form and appropriate verb. Step 3: Examine part B: kept in the station. This is fine and simply indicates location. Step 4: Examine part C: restroom lockers, were later retrieved. This part correctly states where the luggage was stored and that it was later retrieved, though the plural verb were comes from the earlier plural form, which was already wrong. Step 5: Since the main and clearest error arises in part A, that is the part we must mark. Step 6: Therefore, option A is the correct choice for the part containing the error. Verification / Alternative check: Rewrite the entire sentence correctly: Their luggage, which was kept in the station restroom lockers, was later retrieved. In this form, the sentence is grammatical and natural. Comparing this with the original highlights that luggages and which were were the problems, both tied to part A. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B, kept in the station, is grammatically correct and simply describes place. Option C, restroom lockers, were later retrieved, would be acceptable once the subject luggage is corrected to singular and the verb adjusted, so the structure itself is not the primary issue being tested. Option D, No error, would be chosen only if all three parts were correct, which is not the case. Common Pitfalls: Many learners are tempted to pluralise luggage because it refers to multiple bags, but in standard English luggage, baggage, furniture and equipment are uncountable. Another pitfall is to focus only on obvious spelling mistakes and miss countability errors, which examinations often test directly. Final Answer: The erroneous part of the sentence is Option A, which contains the incorrect plural form luggages.

Question 12

Fill in the blank with the most appropriate verb form: The warning bells __________ several times before anyone realized the danger.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of English verb tenses, specifically the past perfect tense used to describe an action that was completed before another action in the past. The sentence concerns warning bells and the later realization of danger. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The warning bells __________ several times before anyone realized the danger. Event 1: Warning bells rang several times. Event 2: People realized the danger. Event 1 happened before Event 2. We need to choose the correct tense to fill the blank. Concept / Approach: When one past action occurs before another past action and we want to emphasise this order, we typically use the past perfect tense for the earlier action and the simple past for the later action. The structure of the past perfect is had + past participle. The past participle of ring is rung, so the correct form is had rung. Forms like had rang are incorrect because rang is the simple past, not the past participle. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the two events. The bells ringing is the earlier event, and the realization of danger is the later event. Step 2: Since the bells had already rung before anyone realized the danger, the earlier action should be in past perfect and the later one in simple past. Step 3: The past perfect form of ring is had rung, not had rang. Step 4: Check option B: had rung. This matches the required form had + past participle. Step 5: Substitute into the sentence: The warning bells had rung several times before anyone realized the danger. The sentence now reads smoothly and shows correct time order. Step 6: Therefore, the correct option is had rung. Verification / Alternative check: You can test the other options. Were ringing suggests an action in progress but does not clearly indicate that it was complete before the realization. Had rang is grammatically wrong because rang is not a participle. Would have rung implies a hypothetical situation, not a real past event. Only had rung correctly expresses the completed action before another past action. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, were ringing, would fit if the second clause were in the past continuous as well, but it does not emphasise completion before realization. Option C, had rang, is incorrect because ring has the forms ring, rang, rung; the past participle is rung, so had rang is wrong. Option D, would have rung, is used for unreal or conditional past situations and does not match the context of an actual warning. Common Pitfalls: Students often confuse the simple past and past participle forms of irregular verbs like ring. Another mistake is to ignore the word before, which is a strong clue that the earlier action should be in the past perfect when both actions are clearly in the past and their order matters. Final Answer: The correct verb form to complete the sentence is had rung.

Question 13

Select the antonym of the word sacred.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question asks you to choose the antonym, or opposite in meaning, of the word sacred. Such questions are common in competitive exams because they test both your knowledge of word meanings and your ability to distinguish subtle differences between related terms. Given Data / Assumptions: Target word: sacred. Options: pious, hallowed, divine, profane. You must select the word that has the opposite meaning to sacred. Assume the religious or spiritual sense of sacred, as in holy or worthy of reverence. Concept / Approach: Sacred usually means holy, connected with religion, deserving great respect, or set apart for a religious purpose. To find the antonym, we first recognise which options share a similar positive spiritual sense and then identify which one expresses the opposite: something that is irreverent, unholy, or disrespectful toward what is considered holy. The word that carries this opposite sense is profane. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand sacred as holy, consecrated, or connected with religious worship. Step 2: Look at option A, pious. Pious means very religious or devout, which is close in meaning to sacred, not opposite. Step 3: Look at option B, hallowed. Hallowed means made holy or greatly respected, again a synonym of sacred. Step 4: Look at option C, divine. Divine means of or like God, godly, or heavenly, also similar to sacred. Step 5: Look at option D, profane. Profane means not sacred, secular, or showing a lack of respect for religious things. Step 6: Since profane directly contrasts with sacred, option D is the correct antonym. Verification / Alternative check: A quick check is to place the words in simple example sentences. You could say a sacred place of worship, a hallowed shrine, or a divine presence, but you would say a profane joke about holy things. The first three share a reverent sense, while profane clearly does not. This confirms that profane is the opposite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Pious refers to a person who is devout or deeply religious, which aligns with the idea of sacred rather than opposing it. Hallowed means made holy and is actually very close in meaning to sacred, often used for hallowed ground or hallowed traditions. Divine emphasises a connection with God or a deity and carries the same reverent tone as sacred. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse antonyms with synonyms, especially when several options are positive or religious sounding. Others may not know the precise meaning of profane and think it only refers to bad language. In fact, its core sense is secular or irreverent toward what is holy, which makes it the direct opposite of sacred. Final Answer: The antonym of sacred is profane.

Question 14

Select the one word that best substitutes the phrase: Rub a part of the body to restore warmth or sensation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a one word substitution question from English vocabulary. You are given a descriptive phrase, Rub a part of the body to restore warmth or sensation, and you must choose the single word that captures this meaning most accurately. Given Data / Assumptions: Phrase: Rub a part of the body to restore warmth or sensation. Options: Fuzz, Chafe, Scum, Oblique. You must find the word whose main meaning matches the given phrase. Assume standard dictionary meanings in general English usage. Concept / Approach: The phrase clearly describes a physical action: rubbing the skin to restore warmth or feeling, for example when hands are cold or a part of the body has gone numb. The verb that means to rub the skin, often causing slight irritation or warmth, is chafe. The other options do not describe this physical act and belong to different semantic fields. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the phrase rub a part of the body to restore warmth or sensation. It suggests friction on the skin. Step 2: Option B, chafe, means to make or become sore by rubbing, or to warm and restore sensation by rubbing. This matches the phrase very well. Step 3: Option A, fuzz, usually refers to fine soft hair or fluff, not an action of rubbing. Step 4: Option C, scum, refers to a layer of dirt or froth on the surface of a liquid or to something considered worthless, not to rubbing the body. Step 5: Option D, oblique, means slanting, indirect, or not straightforward, again unrelated to physical rubbing. Step 6: Therefore the correct one word substitute for the phrase is chafe. Verification / Alternative check: Try using each option in a sentence describing cold hands. You might say She chafed her hands together to restore warmth, which fits perfectly. The other words do not produce meaningful sentences in the same context, which confirms your choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fuzz is a noun for fine hair or fluff, and does not describe an action of rubbing the body. Scum refers to a layer of unpleasant material or metaphorically to a bad person; it does not relate to restoring warmth or sensation. Oblique describes direction or manner of speech and has no connection with rubbing the skin. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse chafe with chafe at, which can mean to feel annoyed, but the core physical sense remains to make sore or warm by rubbing. Recognising multiple related meanings of a verb helps avoid confusion and correctly match it to descriptive phrases in one word substitution questions. Final Answer: The correct one word substitute is Chafe.

Question 15

Improve the bracketed part of the sentence. Human beings are social animals, (who are living in communities), regulated by social norms and laws.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests your understanding of concise, grammatically correct participial phrases. The focus is on removing unnecessary words and choosing the most natural expression in modern academic English while keeping the meaning that human beings live in communities and are regulated by norms and laws. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: Human beings are social animals, (who are living in communities), regulated by social norms and laws. Bracketed part to improve: who are living in communities. Options offer alternative phrasings for the bracketed part. You must select the best improvement, or no improvement if the original is best. Concept / Approach: In formal English, it is usually better to avoid unnecessary relative pronouns and helping verbs when a simple participial phrase will do. The phrase who are living in communities is wordy, and the continuous aspect are living is not needed for a general truth. The most concise and natural form is living in communities, which functions as a participial phrase directly describing social animals. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the intended meaning: Human beings are social animals that live in communities and are regulated by norms and laws. Step 2: The phrase who are living in communities uses who are, which is unnecessary for a general statement about human nature. Step 3: Option A, living in communities, removes who are and correctly uses the present participle living to modify human beings. Step 4: Option B, living amongst a community, is awkward, because amongst a community suggests only one community and an odd prepositional choice. Step 5: Option C, living in midst of communities, is grammatically incomplete; it should be in the midst of, and even then sounds clumsy. Step 6: Option D, no improvement, would keep the wordy original who are living in communities, which is less effective than option A. Verification / Alternative check: Insert option A into the sentence: Human beings are social animals, living in communities, regulated by social norms and laws. The sentence now reads smoothly and logically, with living in communities clearly attached to social animals. This confirms that A is the best improvement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B restricts the idea to a single community and uses amongst in an unnatural way for this context. Option C is grammatically flawed because it omits the article the before midst, and it remains a clumsy phrase even if corrected. Option D ignores the opportunity to make the sentence more concise and idiomatic by removing who are. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes hesitate to remove relative pronouns and auxiliary verbs, assuming that longer constructions sound more formal. In reality, examinations reward clear and concise phrasing when it improves readability without changing meaning. Recognising unnecessary who are patterns is an important skill in sentence improvement questions. Final Answer: The best improvement of the bracketed part is living in communities (Option A).

Question 16

Select the synonym of the word astonish.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your vocabulary by asking for a synonym of astonish. Synonyms are words that have very similar meanings, and recognising them is important for reading comprehension, verbal ability, and precise expression. Given Data / Assumptions: Target word: astonish. Options: mundane, bore, overwhelm, calm. You must identify the word that most closely matches the meaning of astonish. Assume a general context in which astonish means to surprise greatly or amaze. Concept / Approach: Astonish means to surprise someone very much, often in a way that leaves them amazed, impressed, or shocked. Among the given options, overwhelm can mean to affect someone very strongly, especially emotionally, or to overpower them with feelings or impressions. In many contexts, to overwhelm someone with wonder or surprise is close in sense to astonish. The other words either describe the opposite effect or are unrelated. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand astonish as to fill with great surprise or amazement. Step 2: Option A, mundane, means ordinary, dull, or uninteresting, which is almost the opposite of something astonishing. Step 3: Option B, bore, means to make someone feel uninterested or tired through dullness, again the opposite of astonishing them. Step 4: Option C, overwhelm, can mean to overpower with emotion, impression, or force. To be overwhelmed by something amazing is very close to being astonished by it. Step 5: Option D, calm, means peaceful, not excited or disturbed, which does not match the idea of astonishment. Step 6: Therefore, overwhelm is the best synonym among the given options. Verification / Alternative check: Try substituting each option into a sample sentence: The magic trick will astonish the children. The magic trick will overwhelm the children is acceptable and still conveys a strong emotional impact. However, the magic trick will mundane the children or the magic trick will calm the children do not make sense, while the magic trick will bore the children expresses an opposite idea. This confirms your choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Mundane describes something that is very ordinary and lacks excitement, which is not similar to astonishing. Bore refers to making someone feel uninterested or tired, the reverse of capturing attention with surprise. Calm refers to a peaceful state with little excitement or disturbance, again unlike the emotional impact of astonishment. Common Pitfalls: Some test takers expect an exact dictionary synonym like amaze or astound and may hesitate to choose overwhelm. It is important to remember that many exam questions offer near synonyms that match the emotional strength or effect of the target word even if their literal meanings differ slightly. Final Answer: The synonym of astonish is overwhelm (Option C).

Question 17

Fill in the blank with the most appropriate word. I never go shopping on weekends as on those days the malls are ________ of people.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of common collocations in English, particularly how certain adjectives combine with prepositions to form natural expressions. The sentence describes the situation in malls on weekends and you must choose the word that best fits the phrase of people. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: I never go shopping on weekends as on those days the malls are ________ of people. Options: full, busy, crowded, packed. We assume a neutral, conversational tone in standard English. The preposition of is fixed after the blank in the sentence. Concept / Approach: Different adjectives prefer different prepositions. We say full of people, crowded with people, and packed with people in natural English. Because the sentence already provides of after the blank, the adjective that best fits the pattern is full. Busy describes activity but does not fit comfortably with of people in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine the structure: are ________ of people. Ask which adjective normally takes of with people. Step 2: Full of people is a very common expression meaning that there are many people inside a place. Step 3: Crowded usually takes with, as in crowded with people, not crowded of people. Step 4: Packed also normally takes with, as in packed with people, not packed of people. Step 5: Busy of people is not idiomatic; we would say busy with people or simply very busy. Step 6: Therefore, the word that correctly completes the phrase is full. Verification / Alternative check: Try reading the full sentence with each option: the malls are full of people sounds natural; the malls are crowded of people does not; the malls are packed of people also sounds wrong; the malls are busy of people is clearly incorrect. This quick substitution test confirms that full is the best and grammatically correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Busy focuses on the level of activity rather than the number of people and does not naturally take the preposition of in this collocation. Crowded expresses the idea of too many people, but it combines with with people, not of people, in standard English. Packed is similar to crowded and also prefers with, as in packed with people, so packed of people is ungrammatical. Common Pitfalls: Learners may focus only on meaning and think that crowded or packed are stronger expressions for a full mall, ignoring the preposition of that follows. Examinations often test this kind of preposition sensitive collocation, so always check what preposition the adjective normally takes. Final Answer: The correct completion is full, giving the sentence: the malls are full of people.

Question 18

Rearrange the parts of the sentence to form a coherent statement. Williamson shoveled scorn on P - the low income white Republican voters who, Q - were most responsible for the rise of Trump R - as he saw it,

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to rearrange sentence fragments into a logically and grammatically coherent statement. The sentence describes Williamson directing scorn at a particular group of voters and includes a parenthetical comment as he saw it. You must choose the correct sequence of the labelled parts P, Q and R. Given Data / Assumptions: Main clause: Williamson shoveled scorn on ... P: the low income white Republican voters who, Q: were most responsible for the rise of Trump R: as he saw it, You must order P, Q and R after the main clause to form one complete sentence. The final sentence should maintain natural English word order and punctuation. Concept / Approach: The noun phrase the low income white Republican voters who introduces a relative clause beginning with who. The relative clause should be completed by a verb phrase such as were most responsible for the rise of Trump. The parenthetical phrase as he saw it modifies the entire judgement about responsibility and is best placed between who and were to show that it expresses Williamson personal view. The logical order is therefore P, then R as an inserted comment, then Q to complete the relative clause. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Start from the fixed part: Williamson shoveled scorn on ... Step 2: Part P provides the object of on: the low income white Republican voters who. This must come first among the three parts. Step 3: After who, we need a verb phrase, but R, as he saw it, is a common kind of interrupting comment. Step 4: Insert R after who to signal that what follows is his personal perception: Williamson shoveled scorn on the low income white Republican voters who, as he saw it, ... Step 5: Now complete the relative clause with Q: were most responsible for the rise of Trump. Step 6: The full correct sentence is Williamson shoveled scorn on the low income white Republican voters who, as he saw it, were most responsible for the rise of Trump, which corresponds to the order PRQ. Verification / Alternative check: Try other orders. For example, RQP would give as he saw it, were most responsible for the rise of Trump the low income white Republican voters who, which is ungrammatical. Orders starting with Q also fail because were most responsible cannot directly follow on without an object. Only PRQ allows a smooth and natural sentence that respects relative clause structure and the parenthetical comment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: RQP begins with as he saw it, leaving no clear object for shoveled scorn on and placing who at the end, which is incorrect. QPR starts with were most responsible, which cannot immediately follow on and leaves who hanging at the end of the sentence fragment. QRP likewise misplaces the verb were and the relative pronoun who, resulting in an incoherent sentence. Common Pitfalls: Many learners struggle with interrupting phrases such as as he saw it and misplace them at the beginning or end of the sentence. Remember that such comments are often inserted in the middle of a clause, especially after a relative pronoun, to show that the judgement is subjective. Final Answer: The correct order of the parts is PRQ.

Question 19

In the following sentence, one part may contain an error. Find out which part of the sentence has an error and select the appropriate option. If the sentence is free from error, select No error. That summer, elections were(A) / held at many a place(…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is an error spotting question involving an idiomatic English expression, many a, and correct use of verb forms. The sentence talks about elections being held during a certain summer without any untoward incident. You must decide whether any of the labelled parts contain a grammatical error. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: That summer, elections were(A) / held at many a place(B) / without any untoward incident.(C) / No error(D). Part A: That summer, elections were. Part B: held at many a place. Part C: without any untoward incident. Part D: No error, to be chosen if A, B and C are all correct. Assume standard formal English and correct idiomatic expression of many a. Concept / Approach: The phrase many a is a fixed idiom that takes a singular noun (many a place, many a time) but often has a plural sense. In this sentence, elections is plural and is correctly followed by were held. The prepositional phrase at many a place is idiomatic and acceptable. The expression without any untoward incident also follows standard usage. The approach is to verify each part and confirm that no correction is needed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Inspect part A: That summer, elections were. The subject elections is plural, so the plural verb were is correct. The phrase that summer sets the time and is also fine. Step 2: Inspect part B: held at many a place. The passive verb held is correctly used with elections as the subject, and at many a place is a standard idiom meaning at many different places. Step 3: Inspect part C: without any untoward incident. The phrase untoward incident means unexpected or unfortunate incident, and without any untoward incident is a correct and common collocation. Step 4: Put all parts together: That summer, elections were held at many a place without any untoward incident. The sentence is clear, grammatical, and idiomatic. Step 5: Since no part contains an error, the correct choice is that the sentence has no error. Step 6: Therefore, you should select option D, No error. Verification / Alternative check: To check further, you can rephrase the sentence as During that summer, elections were held in many places without any untoward incident. The meaning remains unchanged, which suggests that the original idiomatic form at many a place is acceptable and does not need correction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is correct because elections were is the right subject verb combination. Option B is correct because many a place is a standard idiom, and held at many a place properly follows were. Option C is correct because without any untoward incident is a standard phrase meaning nothing bad or unexpected happened. Common Pitfalls: Many learners misinterpret many a and think it must be wrong because it takes a singular noun. In fact, this construction is standard and often appears in exam passages. Another pitfall is to change idiomatic phrases unnecessarily, but in error spotting questions, not every unusual expression is an error. Final Answer: The sentence is grammatically correct, so the answer is Option D (No error).

Question 20

In the following question on reported speech, the given sentence is in Direct speech. Choose the alternative that best expresses the same idea in Indirect speech: Sahil said, "Where will I be this time next year!"

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Questions on Direct and Indirect speech test understanding of how to report spoken words correctly when we move from quoted speech to reported speech. In this item, the speaker Sahil is expressing a doubt or reflection about where he will be at a particular time in the future. The task is to convert this Direct speech sentence into an Indirect speech sentence that keeps the original meaning, tense, and sense of wonder intact. Given Data / Assumptions: The original sentence in Direct speech is: Sahil said, "Where will I be this time next year!" The reporting verb is said. The sentence is a wh type question combined with an exclamatory feeling of worry or wonder. The time reference this time next year must change in reported speech. We also assume normal rules of backshifting of tense and change of time expressions in English grammar. Concept / Approach: When we change a wh type question from Direct to Indirect speech, we remove the question order and use statement order. The wh word where is kept. Because the reporting verb is in the past, will usually changes to would. The expression this time next year changes to that time the following year. Also, the feeling in the sentence is not a simple question but a kind of self reflection, so verbs like wondered or asked himself fit better than simply said or asked. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the reporting verb: said. Step 2: Note that the question is introduced by the wh word where, so we keep where in the reported clause. Step 3: Change the question structure will I be to normal word order he would be in Indirect speech. Step 4: Backshift will to would because the reporting verb is in the past. Step 5: Change this time next year to that time the following year to match Indirect speech rules for time expressions. Step 6: Choose a suitable reporting verb that shows inner doubt or reflection. The verb wondered is the most natural choice. Verification / Alternative check: If we read the final sentence Sahil wondered where he would be that time the following year, it sounds natural and keeps the same meaning as the original Direct speech. The tense is correct, the pronoun I becomes he, and the time expression has been properly shifted. The sentence neither sounds like a direct question nor loses the emotional tone of uncertainty. Therefore it is a valid and accurate transformation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A uses should be instead of would be, which slightly changes the meaning from future prediction to obligation. Option B uses worried, which overemphasizes fear rather than neutral wondering and still is less standard. Option D simply repeats said where he would be, which does not correctly reflect the interrogative sense and sounds unnatural. Option E is close in meaning but the verb wanted to know is less precise than wondered for the reflective tone of the original sentence. Common Pitfalls: Learners often keep the auxiliary will in the reported clause instead of changing it to would after a past reporting verb. Another frequent error is to preserve the question word order or to introduce the clause with if instead of using where in a wh question. Many students also forget to change this time next year into that time the following year. Careful attention to tense backshift, pronoun change, and time expression is necessary for full marks in questions on Direct and Indirect speech. Final Answer: The correct Indirect speech form is Sahil wondered where he would be that time the following year.

English Questions