Question 1

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the word which is similar in meaning to the given word 'Ascend' (to go up).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question checks your understanding of the verb 'Ascend', which is commonly used in contexts such as climbing stairs, rising to a higher position or increasing in level. Recognising the correct synonym helps in reading comprehension, especially in passages dealing with travel, science or social status, where words like 'ascend' and 'descend' appear frequently. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: 'Ascend' (verb). - Options: 'Lay', 'Climb', 'Weaken', 'Void'. - Only one option should share the basic idea 'to go up or move upward'. - Standard dictionary meanings are assumed. Concept / Approach: The verb 'ascend' means to go up, rise or move to a higher position or level. For example, a plane ascends into the sky, a climber ascends a mountain, or a person ascends the throne. Among the given options, 'climb' closely matches this sense of going upward. 'Lay' means to put something down. 'Weaken' means to become less strong. 'Void' is most often a noun meaning emptiness or a verb meaning to cancel something. None of these other words express the idea of moving upward. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Fix the meaning of 'Ascend': to go up, rise, move upward or reach a higher position. Step 2: Consider 'Lay': this means to put or place something down, usually on a surface, which is the opposite direction of going up. Step 3: Consider 'Climb': this verb means to go upward by using feet, hands or some means of support, for example to climb a hill, ladder or stairs. Step 4: Consider 'Weaken': this means to become weaker or make something less strong; it has no connection with direction or height. Step 5: Consider 'Void': as a verb it means to cancel or make invalid; as a noun it means empty space, but it still does not mean to move upward. Verification / Alternative check: Test substitutions in simple sentences: 'The hikers ascended the hill' becomes 'The hikers climbed the hill', which keeps the meaning intact. 'The hikers laid the hill' is meaningless. 'The hikers weakened the hill' changes the idea completely. 'The hikers voided the hill' is also meaningless. Only 'climb' works as a direct replacement for 'ascend' in typical sentences. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Lay' is wrong because it suggests placing something down, often in a horizontal position, not going up. 'Weaken' is wrong because it refers to strength, not direction or level. 'Void' is wrong because it refers either to cancelling something or to emptiness and does not describe upward movement. These words belong to completely different idea groups than 'ascend'. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students confuse 'ascend' with abstract ideas like becoming powerful or becoming weak, but even in metaphorical uses, 'ascend' still carries the idea of rising higher, not weakening. It is helpful to link 'ascend' with 'stairs, mountains, lifts or ranks' in your mind, and 'descend' with coming down. Associate 'ascend = climb or rise' and 'descend = go down' as a pair to remember them better. Final Answer: The word most similar in meaning to 'Ascend' is Climb.

Question 2

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the word opposite in meaning to the given word 'Waggish' (playfully humorous).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to find the correct antonym of an advanced adjective. The word 'Waggish' describes a person or remark that is playfully humorous or joking. In exams, such words often appear in synonym and antonym questions to check whether candidates can distinguish between subtle shades of humour and seriousness in English vocabulary. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: 'Waggish'. - Options: 'Jocular', 'Whimsical', 'Flippant', 'Solemn'. - Exactly one option should express the opposite quality of playfully humorous behaviour. - Standard meanings from advanced English vocabulary are assumed. Concept / Approach: 'Waggish' is used for someone who likes to make jokes, is mischievously humorous or clownish. Therefore, the antonym should describe a person or mood that is serious, grave or not given to joking. 'Solemn' directly means serious, formal and without any trace of joking. The other options—'jocular', 'whimsical' and 'flippant'—all describe different forms of humour or lightness, and are therefore closer to being synonyms of 'waggish' rather than opposites. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Fix the meaning of 'Waggish': playful, joking, humorous in a slightly mischievous way. Step 2: Examine 'Jocular': this means fond of joking or playful, clearly similar to 'waggish'. Step 3: Examine 'Whimsical': this describes behaviour that is fanciful, unpredictable or playful, again close to humour and lightness. Step 4: Examine 'Flippant': this means not showing a serious or respectful attitude, teasing or lightly disrespectful, still on the humorous or casual side. Step 5: Examine 'Solemn': this means serious and dignified, without any sign of humour or playfulness, which is the true opposite of 'waggish'. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine two descriptions of the same person: 'He is a waggish speaker' suggests that he cracks jokes, tells funny stories and keeps the mood light. 'He is a solemn speaker' suggests that he is serious, grave and does not indulge in jokes. These two descriptions clearly stand in contrast. In contrast, calling someone 'jocular' or 'whimsical' reinforces the same playful, humorous nature as 'waggish', and 'flippant' also keeps the tone light and unserious, not opposite. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Jocular' is wrong because it also means humorous and joking, so it is more a synonym than an antonym. 'Whimsical' is wrong because it suggests playful fancy or odd, lighthearted behaviour, related to humour instead of opposing it. 'Flippant' is wrong because it means casually disrespectful or joking when seriousness is expected; it opposes respect, not humour itself. All three still occupy the 'not serious' side of the spectrum, just like 'waggish'. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake in such questions is to choose another unfamiliar or fancy looking word, assuming it must be the opposite. However, exam setters often place synonyms among the distractors. When dealing with tone words like 'waggish', always ask yourself whether the option describes humour or seriousness. The presence of 'solemn' among three humour related words is a strong clue that it is the correct antonym. Final Answer: The opposite in meaning to 'Waggish' is Solemn.

Question 3

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the word opposite in meaning to the given word 'Desecrate' (to violate the sacredness of something).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of antonyms for verbs related to religious or moral respect. The word 'Desecrate' is often used in contexts where something holy, sacred or respected is treated with violence, disrespect or pollution. To find the antonym, you must identify the word that expresses the opposite action, namely making something holy or treating it as sacred. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target verb: 'Desecrate'. - Options: 'Sanctify', 'Profane', 'Befoul', 'Defile'. - Exactly one option must be the opposite in meaning, not another negative synonym. - Standard religious and moral vocabulary meanings are assumed. Concept / Approach: 'Desecrate' means to treat a sacred place or object with violent disrespect, to violate its holiness or to profane it. Therefore, its antonym should mean to make something holy, bless it, or treat it with the highest reverence. 'Sanctify' has exactly this meaning: to make holy, consecrate or set apart as sacred. The other options—'profane', 'befoul' and 'defile'—all carry negative senses related to making something dirty, impure or disrespectful, and are therefore close in meaning to 'desecrate' rather than opposite. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Fix the meaning of 'Desecrate': to damage, violate or show disrespect toward something sacred. Step 2: Examine 'Sanctify': this means to make holy, consecrate, bless, or regard with sacred respect. Step 3: Examine 'Profane': this means to treat something sacred with disrespect or to violate its holiness, very close to 'desecrate'. Step 4: Examine 'Befoul': this means to make something dirty or pollute it, which is again a negative, damaging action. Step 5: Examine 'Defile': this means to spoil, pollute or corrupt, especially something pure or holy, again similar to 'desecrate'. Verification / Alternative check: Consider a temple as an example. If someone sprays graffiti and damages idols, they desecrate the temple. If a priest performs rituals to purify and dedicate the temple again, he sanctifies it. Thus 'desecrate' and 'sanctify' are natural opposites. Using 'profane', 'befoul' or 'defile' describes actions that damage or pollute, so these words sit on the same side of meaning as 'desecrate' and cannot be antonyms. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Profane' is wrong as an antonym because it is almost a synonym of 'desecrate', both involving disrespect toward the sacred. 'Befoul' is wrong because it describes making something dirty or polluted and reinforces the idea of damage. 'Defile' is wrong because it also means spoiling or polluting something pure, again matching the negative side rather than opposing it. Common Pitfalls: Many exam takers forget that antonym questions require the opposite meaning, not just another word from the same general theme. Seeing several negative words together, they may choose one of them without checking which one actually reverses the meaning. To avoid such mistakes, always state the target meaning in your own simple words first (for example, 'desecrate = spoil something holy') and then look for the word that describes the reverse action ('sanctify = make it holy'). Final Answer: The opposite in meaning to 'Desecrate' is Sanctify.

Question 4

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the option which best expresses the meaning of the idiom / phrase 'Will-o-the-wisp' as used in English.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This idiom question focuses on the colourful expression 'Will-o-the-wisp', sometimes written as 'will-o'-the-wisp'. It originates from mysterious flickering lights seen over marshes, which seem to appear and disappear and lure travellers away from their path. In modern English, the idiom has a figurative meaning related to chasing something that always remains out of reach. Given Data / Assumptions: - Idiom: 'Will-o-the-wisp'. - Options: (a) Something that is impossible to get or achieve; (b) To keep off an unwanted and undesirable person; (c) To spend recklessly; (d) Accept or leave the offer. - Only one option must reflect the established idiomatic meaning in standard English. Concept / Approach: A 'will-o-the-wisp' is traditionally a ghostly, shifting light over marshland that seems to guide travellers and then vanishes, causing them to lose their way. As an idiom, it refers to a goal, hope or dream that is impossible to reach or that constantly escapes one's grasp. It is a symbol of something alluring but unattainable. When examining options, look for the one that conveys this idea of an elusive, unreachable object or aim, rather than unrelated actions like spending or rejecting people. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the core meaning: 'Will-o-the-wisp' represents something attractive but impossible or nearly impossible to obtain. Step 2: Option (a) describes 'Something that is impossible to get or achieve', which directly matches the idiomatic sense. Step 3: Option (b) 'To keep off an unwanted and undesirable person' relates to avoiding someone, which has no connection to an elusive goal. Step 4: Option (c) 'To spend recklessly' refers to careless expenditure; this is a completely different idiom (such as 'throw money around'). Step 5: Option (d) 'Accept or leave the offer' describes a take it or leave it situation; again, this does not involve chasing an unreachable dream. Verification / Alternative check: Consider a sentence like 'For many young players, the idea of instant fame is a will-o-the-wisp.' Here the phrase clearly means that instant fame is something that seems attractive but is not really attainable or realistic. Replacing it with option (a), we get 'the idea of instant fame is something that is impossible to get or achieve', which preserves the meaning. None of the other options fit when substituted in such real world examples. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (b) is wrong because it describes keeping away a person, which has no relation to the image of a misleading light or unreachable goal. Option (c) is wrong because reckless spending is not about chasing something unreachable, but about using money carelessly. Option (d) is wrong because it describes a simple two choice decision, not a continuing, fruitless pursuit. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes misinterpret the idiom as something to do with 'ghosts' or 'spirits' because of its origin and may associate it with fear or bad luck. While the origin involves mysterious lights, the established figurative meaning in modern English focuses on the idea of an elusive or unattainable objective. To remember it easily, think of someone chasing a moving light that always stays just out of reach, symbolising an impossible goal. Final Answer: 'Will-o-the-wisp' means something that is impossible to get or achieve.

Question 5

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the option which best expresses the meaning of the idiom / phrase 'To go through fire and water'.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This idiom question tests your knowledge of a vivid English expression: 'To go through fire and water'. Idioms often compress a long idea into a short, picture filled phrase, and here the image of passing through both fire and water highlights great difficulty or danger. In competitive exams, understanding such idioms helps in both vocabulary questions and reading comprehension passages. Given Data / Assumptions: - Idiom: 'To go through fire and water'. - Options: (a) To scold someone; (b) To experience many dangers in order to achieve something; (c) To act without restraints; (d) Something which hurts. - Exactly one option must capture the established figurative meaning of the idiom. Concept / Approach: The phrase 'to go through fire and water for someone or something' means to face severe hardships, dangers and difficulties in order to help that person or to reach a goal. It implies extreme loyalty or determination. It does not refer to scolding, mere pain or acting freely without control. When you see dramatic images like 'fire and water', think of life threatening challenges that one is willing to endure for a cause. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Visualise the literal image: passing through both raging fire and deep water would be extremely difficult and dangerous. Step 2: Translate this into figurative meaning: facing many dangers and hardships for something important. Step 3: Examine option (b): 'To experience many dangers in order to achieve something' directly matches this idea. Step 4: Examine option (a): 'To scold someone' has nothing to do with facing dangers and appears in other idioms such as 'give someone a piece of one's mind'. Step 5: Examine option (c): 'To act without restraints' is about behaving freely or wildly, not about enduring dangers for a goal. Step 6: Examine option (d): 'Something which hurts' is too general and does not express the idea of continued effort and risk to reach a goal. Verification / Alternative check: Use the idiom in a sentence: 'He would go through fire and water for his children.' This clearly means that he would face any danger and overcome any obstacle for their sake. Substituting option (b), we obtain 'He would experience many dangers in order to achieve something for his children', which conveys the same sense of sacrifice and effort. The other options do not fit this example at all and distort the meaning of the sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (a) is wrong because scolding is just speaking angrily; it is not a matter of enduring hardship. Option (c) is wrong because acting without restraints describes behaviour, not suffering for a cause. Option (d) is wrong because while going through fire certainly hurts, the idiom focuses on willingness to suffer for a purpose, not on pain alone. Common Pitfalls: Learners may sometimes choose an option that refers to pain or hurt because they associate fire with burning. However, idioms must be understood as whole units with their conventional meanings, not as literal word by word pictures. To remember this idiom, think of someone on a dangerous journey crossing fire and water to reach a destination, which naturally suggests facing many dangers for what they care about. Final Answer: 'To go through fire and water' means to experience many dangers in order to achieve something.

Question 6

In the following sentence, the bracketed phrase needs attention. Choose the option that best improves or corrects the sentence if necessary. 'We do not (agree on) certain things.'

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests your knowledge of prepositions that are correctly used with the verb 'agree'. In English, different prepositions slightly change the meaning of 'agree', and exam questions often check whether you can choose the natural and grammatically correct combination for a given sentence. Here the sentence reads, 'We do not agree on certain things.' Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: 'We do not (agree on) certain things.' - Options: 'agree to', 'agree about', 'agree of', 'No improvement' (keeping 'agree on'). - The sentence refers to 'certain things', meaning some topics, issues or points of view on which people differ. Concept / Approach: The verb 'agree' can take several prepositions: 'agree on something', 'agree about something' and 'agree to something'. 'Agree on' is commonly used when people reach the same opinion after discussion, especially about plans, terms or specific points. 'Agree about' is used more generally for topics or issues. 'Agree to' is used when accepting a proposal, plan or arrangement. In this sentence, 'agree on certain things' is idiomatic and acceptable, so there is no need to change the phrase; therefore 'No improvement' is the correct choice. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the meaning: the speakers are saying that there are some issues or points on which they do not share the same opinion. Step 2: Test 'agree on': 'We do not agree on certain things' naturally means they do not reach agreement on some points. Step 3: Test 'agree to': 'We do not agree to certain things' would usually refer to not giving consent to certain proposals, which is a different nuance. Step 4: Test 'agree about': 'We do not agree about certain things' is also possible in English, but it is not clearly more correct than 'agree on' in this sentence. Step 5: Test 'agree of': 'agree of' is not a standard combination and is grammatically wrong. Verification / Alternative check: Both 'agree on certain things' and 'agree about certain things' can appear in good English, but exam style sentence improvement questions usually reserve changes for clearly wrong or awkward phrases. 'Agree on' is frequently used for specific items or points: 'We agree on the main issue', 'They could not agree on the changes'. Since the given sentence already sounds natural, the safest and most accurate choice is to leave it unchanged by selecting 'No improvement'. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Agree to' shifts the meaning toward accepting proposals or conditions (for example, 'agree to the terms'), which is not the focus here. 'Agree about' is not incorrect, but it does not improve clarity or correctness compared with 'agree on', so it is not the best improvement. 'Agree of' is simply ungrammatical, as 'of' is not used in this structure. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates automatically assume that the bracketed part is wrong and must be changed, so they pick any grammatically possible alternative, often 'agree to'. However, sentence improvement questions often include cases where the best answer is 'No improvement'. To avoid such traps, always ask whether the original phrase is truly incorrect or unnatural before changing it. In this case, 'agree on certain things' is fully acceptable English. Final Answer: The sentence is already correct; the best choice is No improvement, keeping 'agree on' as it is.

Question 7

In the following sentence, the bracketed part needs attention. Choose the option that best improves or corrects the sentence if necessary. 'There are two pens here and (either write) well.'

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on subject verb agreement and the correct use of 'either' with singular verbs. The sentence 'There are two pens here and (either write) well.' contains a bracketed verb phrase that must be checked for agreement with its subject. Competitive exams frequently test small but important points like this in grammar sections. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: 'There are two pens here and either write well.' - Options: 'either have written', 'either wrote well', 'either writes', 'No improvement'. - 'Either' refers to one or the other of the two pens, considered individually. Concept / Approach: When 'either' is used as a pronoun meaning 'one or the other of two', it is grammatically singular and therefore takes a singular verb. For example, we say 'Either is fine' or 'Either works for me'. In the sentence, 'either write well' incorrectly uses the plural form 'write' with a singular subject. The correct form is 'either writes well'. The other options either change the tense unnecessarily or are not appropriate for this simple present, general statement about the pens. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the grammatical subject after the conjunction 'and': it is 'either' (of the two pens). Step 2: Recognise that 'either' in this usage is singular and should take a singular verb. Step 3: The singular present form of 'write' for third person singular is 'writes'. Step 4: Therefore, the corrected clause should read 'either writes well'. Step 5: Compare this with the options and select 'either writes' as the correct improvement. Verification / Alternative check: Read the fully corrected sentence: 'There are two pens here and either writes well.' This means that out of the two pens, any one you pick will write well. The tense is simple present, suitable for expressing a general fact. 'Either have written' is present perfect and grammatically wrong because 'either' does not take 'have' in this way. 'Either wrote well' changes the tense to simple past, which is not required, and still sounds awkward. 'No improvement' is incorrect because 'either write' breaks subject verb agreement by using a plural verb with a singular subject. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Either have written' is wrong because 'either' requires 'has' in the present perfect, not 'have', and even then the aspect is unnecessary for this statement. 'Either wrote well' is wrong because it switches the sentence into the past tense and remains stylistically weak compared with the standard general present. 'No improvement' is wrong because it would keep the grammatically incorrect 'either write' form. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes forget that 'either' and 'neither' used before verbs are singular. They may be misled by the plural noun 'two pens' earlier in the sentence and incorrectly choose a plural verb. To avoid this, always focus on the immediate subject of the verb. After 'either' and 'neither' in such structures, remember to use singular verb forms: 'either is', 'either does', 'either writes' and similarly 'neither is', 'neither does', 'neither writes'. Final Answer: The correct improvement is 'either writes', giving 'There are two pens here and either writes well.'

Question 8

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the one word which is the best substitute for the phrase 'A strong blast of wind'.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This one word substitution question tests your knowledge of specific nouns used to describe natural phenomena, in this case a sudden, strong movement of air. Knowing precise words like 'gust', 'breeze' or 'gale' helps in descriptive writing and also frequently appears in general English sections of competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: - Phrase to replace: 'A strong blast of wind.' - Options: 'Implosion', 'Trickle', 'Gust', 'Mantle'. - Exactly one option should refer to a sudden, strong burst of wind. Concept / Approach: The correct term for a sudden, short burst or blast of wind is 'gust'. Weather reports and everyday speech use phrases like 'a gust of wind' or 'strong gusts are expected'. The other options have very different meanings: 'implosion' is a violent collapse inward, 'trickle' is a small, slow flow of liquid, and 'mantle' refers to a cloak, covering or a layer around something. None of these describe a burst of air. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key idea in the phrase: a strong, brief blast or rush of wind. Step 2: Consider 'Implosion': this refers to something collapsing inward, often used in physics or engineering, not to moving air. Step 3: Consider 'Trickle': this means a small, thin flow of liquid, such as water, moving slowly. Step 4: Consider 'Gust': this noun means a sudden, strong rush of wind. Step 5: Consider 'Mantle': this refers to a cloak or covering, or the layer inside the Earth; it has nothing to do with blasts of wind. Verification / Alternative check: Use each option in a sample sentence: 'A strong gust of wind blew the papers away' is a natural, common expression. 'A strong implosion of wind' or 'a strong trickle of wind' sound wrong and unnatural. 'A strong mantle of wind' also makes no sense. Therefore, 'gust' is the only word that can correctly and idiomatically replace 'a strong blast of wind' in normal English usage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Implosion' is wrong because it focuses on inward collapse, not outward movement of air. 'Trickle' is wrong because it describes a thin, weak flow, usually of liquid, and does not match the strength and suddenness of a blast. 'Mantle' is wrong because it refers to coverings or layers and is not linked to wind or air pressure in this context. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates may be attracted to longer or more technical sounding words like 'implosion' because they seem more impressive. However, one word substitution questions often use simple, everyday terms like 'gust'. The safest method is always to think of actual, real life sentences you have seen or heard, such as in weather reports or stories, and then choose the word that naturally fits those sentences. Final Answer: The correct one word substitute for 'a strong blast of wind' is Gust.

Question 9

In the following question, out of the four alternatives, select the one word which is the best substitute for the phrase 'Phobia of dogs'.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This one word substitution question checks your familiarity with medical style terms for specific phobias. A phobia is an intense, irrational fear of a particular object, situation or creature. In this case, you must select the technical term for an abnormal, strong fear of dogs. Such terms often appear in vocabulary lists for competitive exams and in general knowledge of psychology related words. Given Data / Assumptions: - Phrase to replace: 'Phobia of dogs'. - Options: 'Orophobia', 'Cynophobia', 'Vatrachophobia', 'Phemophobia'. - Only one option should specifically refer to fear of dogs. Concept / Approach: The term 'Cynophobia' comes from Greek roots: 'kyon' or 'cyno' meaning dog, and 'phobia' meaning fear. Therefore, 'cynophobia' literally means fear of dogs. 'Orophobia' would relate to mountains or mouths depending on the root, but it is not the standard term for fear of dogs. 'Vatrachophobia' refers to a fear of frogs or amphibians (from 'batrachia'). 'Phemophobia' is not recognised as the standard name for dog phobia either. So we should choose the option containing the 'cyno' root associated with dogs. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that 'phobia' in medical or psychological terms means intense irrational fear. Step 2: Identify the root in 'Cynophobia': 'cyno' or 'kyon' is linked to dogs in words like 'cynology' (study of dogs). Step 3: Match 'Cynophobia' with 'phobia of dogs' as fear of dogs. Step 4: Note that 'Orophobia' does not have the 'cyn' root and is used differently in medical terminology. Step 5: Note that 'Vatrachophobia' is associated with frogs and amphibians, and 'Phemophobia' is not a standard dog related term. Verification / Alternative check: Think of how related fields use these roots: 'cynic' originally referred to a member of a Greek philosophical school associated symbolically with dogs, and 'cynology' is the scientific study of dogs. This root connection strengthens the association between 'cynophobia' and dogs. In contrast, the other options lack any common root that suggests dogs, so they cannot accurately represent fear of dogs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Orophobia' is wrong because it is typically associated with fear of heights, mountains or swallowing, depending on context, not with dogs. 'Vatrachophobia' (more commonly 'batrachophobia') refers to fear of amphibians such as frogs, not dogs. 'Phemophobia' is not the standard term used for fear of dogs and does not contain any root that suggests dogs, so it is not the correct one word substitution. Common Pitfalls: Many students guess phobia words purely based on sound, but a better strategy is to learn common roots: 'arachno' for spiders, 'hydro' for water, 'acro' for heights, 'cyno' for dogs and so on. Recognising these roots allows you to decode new terms even if you have not memorised every phobia name. In exams, whenever you see 'cynophobia', link 'cyno' with dogs to recall its meaning quickly. Final Answer: The correct one word substitute for 'phobia of dogs' is Cynophobia.

Question 10

In the following question, four words are given, out of which one word is incorrectly spelt. Find the incorrectly spelt word.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This spelling recognition question asks you to identify the one wrongly spelt word among four similar looking options. Such questions are common in competitive exams because they test careful reading and familiarity with standard English spellings. The words here are of moderate difficulty and can easily be confused if you only glance at them quickly. Given Data / Assumptions: - Options: 'Bulettin', 'Barrage', 'Buoyant', 'Beginner'. - Exactly one word is incorrectly spelt, and the others are correct according to standard English dictionaries. Concept / Approach: The word that exam setters clearly intend to test here is 'Bulletin', which is often misspelt due to its double consonants and vowel pattern. The correct spelling is 'Bulletin' with 'bul' plus 'letin' (b-u-l-l-e-t-i-n), not 'Bulettin'. The other words are correctly spelt: 'Barrage' (meaning a heavy, continuous attack or flow), 'Buoyant' (able to float or cheerful) and 'Beginner' (a person who is just starting to learn or do something). Therefore, you should select the word whose spelling does not match its standard dictionary form. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check 'Bulettin'. It looks similar to 'Bulletin', a word commonly used for news sheet or notice, but the letters are in the wrong pattern. Step 2: Recall the correct spelling 'Bulletin': b-u-l-l-e-t-i-n rather than b-u-l-e-t-t-i-n. Step 3: Check 'Barrage'. This is correctly spelt with double 'r' and 'a-g-e' at the end. Step 4: Check 'Buoyant'. This is correctly spelt b-u-o-y-a-n-t, describing something that can float or a cheerful mood. Step 5: Check 'Beginner'. This word correctly has double 'n' in the middle, b-e-g-i-n-n-e-r. Verification / Alternative check: If you consult a standard dictionary or think of everyday usage, you will see announcements like 'school bulletin', 'news bulletin' or 'official bulletin'. All are spelt 'Bulletin' with two l's followed by 'e-t-i-n'. The option 'Bulettin' reverses the positions of the vowels and consonants, creating an incorrect form. The other three words appear exactly as they do in normal reading material, confirming that 'Bulettin' is the only misspelt word. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Barrage' is correct and often used in phrases like 'a barrage of questions'. 'Buoyant' is correct in contexts such as 'buoyant market' or 'buoyant mood'. 'Beginner' is correct and should not be confused with shorter forms such as 'beginer', which would be wrong. None of these three show any letter order or doubling problem, so they cannot be the incorrect spelling demanded by the question. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes doubt their own memory when they see double consonants and may suspect words like 'Beginner' or 'Barrage' because of the repeated letters. However, double consonants are very common in English and are often correct. A good strategy is to imagine common phrases where each word is used; if the spelling in your mind matches the option, it is likely correct. In this case, 'school bulletin' is a very standard phrase, making 'Bulettin' stand out as wrong once you recall the correct form 'Bulletin'. Final Answer: The incorrectly spelt word is Bulettin; the correct spelling should be 'Bulletin'.

Question 11

In the following question, four words are given, out of which one word is incorrectly spelt. Find the incorrectly spelt word.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This spelling question again asks you to identify the single incorrectly spelt word from a group of four. Words for common objects like 'handkerchief' are often misspelt because of unusual letter order. Recognising the correct pattern is important for error spotting and accurate written communication in English. Given Data / Assumptions: - Options: 'Guidance', 'Ambassador', 'Handkercheif', 'Labourer'. - Exactly one of these words does not match the standard dictionary spelling. Concept / Approach: The tricky word here is 'handkerchief'. Many learners misplace the 'ie' sequence and write 'handkercheif'. The correct spelling is h-a-n-d-k-e-r-c-h-i-e-f, where 'chief' appears at the end, not 'cheif'. The other words are correctly spelt: 'Guidance' (help or direction), 'Ambassador' (official representative of a country) and 'Labourer' (a person who does physical work). Therefore, we must select 'Handkercheif' as the incorrect form. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine 'Guidance': this is the correct spelling used in phrases like 'career guidance' and 'moral guidance'. Step 2: Examine 'Ambassador': this word is correctly spelt with 'assa' in the middle, as in 'Indian ambassador'. Step 3: Examine 'Handkercheif': this looks suspicious because of the 'cheif' ending, which is a common error. Step 4: Recall the correct spelling 'Handkerchief': h-a-n-d-k-e-r-c-h-i-e-f, following the same 'chief' pattern as in 'chief'. Step 5: Examine 'Labourer': this is correctly spelt in British English with 'ou', meaning a person who does manual work. Verification / Alternative check: Compare 'handkercheif' with other words ending in 'chief': 'chief', 'mischief', 'handkerchief'. All have the 'i-e-f' sequence, not 'e-i-f'. Remembering the separate word 'chief' makes it easier to spot that 'cheif' is incorrect. The fact that 'Guidance', 'Ambassador' and 'Labourer' appear exactly as they do in textbooks and newspapers confirms that they are correctly spelt. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Guidance' is correct and should not be confused with incorrect forms like 'guidence'. 'Ambassador' is correct and widely used in diplomacy and news reports. 'Labourer' is correct in British English spelling, which is the standard used in many exams; the American form 'laborer' is also correct but represents a different spelling standard, not an error in this context. Therefore, none of these can be chosen as the misspelt word. Common Pitfalls: The main trap is the very common typo 'cheif' instead of 'chief'. Many learners memorise words visually and may not notice the change. To avoid such mistakes, remember the simple rule 'i before e' in 'chief' and apply it to 'handkerchief' as 'handker + chief'. When you see 'Handkercheif', recognise that the vowels have been swapped and that this is the incorrect variant. Final Answer: The incorrectly spelt word is Handkercheif; the correct spelling is 'Handkerchief'.

Question 12

The question below consists of a set of labelled sentences. Out of the four options given, select the most logical order of the sentences to form a coherent paragraph about a poor idler with unusual looks.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This para jumble question asks you to arrange four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S into a coherent short paragraph. The sentences describe a particular man, his appearance, his work habits and how others viewed him. Your task is to choose the order that presents a smooth, logically organised description from introduction to conclusion. Given Data / Assumptions: The four sentences are: - P: He was a funny looking man with a high, bald, dome shaped head, a face very small in comparison and a long wavy beard. - Q: He did not work at his trade, a stonecutter, more than what was necessary to keep his wife and three boys alive. - R: His unusual features were a standing joke among his friends. - S: He was a poor man, an idler. We assume no extra sentences and must choose among the given orders only. Concept / Approach: A well organised descriptive paragraph often starts by introducing the person and then describes appearance, how others see him and then habits or economic status. Sentence P vividly describes his physical features and naturally introduces him as 'a funny looking man'. Sentence R comments on his unusual features being a joke among friends, which clearly refers back to P. Sentence Q gives information about his occupation and lazy working attitude, and S summarises his condition as a poor idler. The order that best reflects this progression is P R Q S. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Look for a natural opening sentence. P begins with 'He was a funny looking man...' and paints a detailed picture of his appearance, which works well as an introduction. Step 2: After P, it is logical to comment on the effect of his unusual features on others. R does exactly this by stating that his unusual features were a standing joke among his friends, so R should follow P. Step 3: Next, we can move from looks to lifestyle. Q tells us that he did not work much at his trade and provides details of his family responsibilities, deepening our understanding of his life. Step 4: Finally, S sums up his social and economic status in general terms: 'He was a poor man, an idler.' This works as a concluding sentence that wraps up both his poverty and laziness. Step 5: The resulting order P R Q S corresponds to option PRQS. Verification / Alternative check: Read the full paragraph in the PRQS order: first you visualise his strange appearance (P), then you learn that others joke about those features (R), then you hear about his minimal work as a stonecutter to support his family (Q), and finally you get a short summary of his overall condition as a poor idler (S). This forms a smooth, natural flow. Other options such as QPSR or SRPQ either start in the middle of the story (with his trade or his poverty) or refer to 'unusual features' before those features have been described, which reduces coherence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: QPSR is wrong because starting with Q focuses immediately on his work habits without first telling the reader who he is or what he looks like; then the description of his appearance appears out of place. RQPS is wrong because it begins by talking about 'his unusual features' before those features have been described, creating a sudden, confusing start. SRPQ is wrong because starting with 'He was a poor man, an idler' gives a conclusion first and then jumps to jokes about his looks without prior description, disrupting the natural narrative order. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error in para jumbles is to pick an order that mentions an interesting fact first without checking whether that sentence depends on earlier information. If a sentence uses phrases like 'his unusual features' (R), it must usually come after a sentence that explains those features (P). Always check for such referencing words and pronouns, and use them as clues to link sentences in the proper order. Final Answer: The most logical and coherent order is P R Q S, corresponding to option PRQS.

Question 13

The question below consists of a set of labelled sentences. Out of the four options given, select the most logical order of the sentences to form a coherent paragraph about consumer credit and materialistic culture.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This para jumble question asks you to arrange four sentences about consumerism, advertising, loans and materialistic culture into a logical paragraph. The sentences explain how customers are lured into buying more, how loans are extended to them, and what happens when the creditworthy segment of the market is exhausted. Understanding logical flow and cause effect relations is crucial to solving such questions correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: The four sentences are: - P: When all the creditworthy people were given loans to a logical limit, they ceased to be a part of the market. - Q: Even this would have been understandable if it could work as an eye opener. - R: Owing to the materialistic culture elsewhere, it was possible to keep selling newer products to the consumers despite having existing ones which served equally well. - S: They were lured through advertising and marketing techniques of 'dustbinisation' of the customer; and then finally, once they became ready customers, they were given loans and credits to help them buy more and more. We must identify the order that yields a coherent narrative of how consumers are drawn into over consumption and debt. Concept / Approach: A logical paragraph starts with a general background, then explains the mechanism or process, then states the consequence, and finally comments on it. Sentence R broadly describes the materialistic culture and the possibility of selling newer products even when old ones are still useful. Sentence S then explains how advertising and 'dustbinisation' convert people into ready customers who are given loans to buy more. Sentence P logically follows as a consequence: once creditworthy people have taken loans up to a limit, they drop out of the effective market. Sentence Q comments on this outcome, saying that even this could have been understandable if it had served as an eye opener. The sequence R S P Q therefore provides the clearest progression. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Look for a sentence that gives broad context. R, with its reference to 'materialistic culture elsewhere' and 'selling newer products', clearly sets the scene and should come first. Step 2: Next, see how consumers are actually manipulated within this materialistic culture. S explains this by describing advertising, 'dustbinisation' of customers and the use of loans and credits to keep them buying more, so S follows R. Step 3: After consumers are loaded with loans, a natural consequence appears in P: when all creditworthy people have been lent up to a logical limit, they can no longer function as fresh buyers in the market, so they cease to be an effective part of it. Step 4: Finally, Q evaluates this consequence by saying that even such a situation would have been understandable if it had acted as an eye opener for people. This reflective tone makes Q suitable as the concluding sentence. Step 5: Thus, the sequence R S P Q corresponds to option RSPQ. Verification / Alternative check: Reading the sentences in the RSPQ order, you get a coherent explanation: first the background of materialistic culture (R), then how advertising and credit systems lure consumers (S), then the result when credit capacity is exhausted (P), and finally a commentary on whether this result teaches a lesson (Q). Other options, such as PRQS or RPQS, start in the middle of the story or place Q, with its 'Even this would have been understandable', too early, before the 'this' is fully explained, which damages the logical flow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: PRQS is wrong because starting with P immediately discusses what happens 'when all the creditworthy people were given loans', even though the process that led to that situation has not been described yet. QSPR is wrong because it starts with Q, which uses 'Even this' and clearly refers back to a situation that must first be presented. RPQS starts well with R but then jumps to P, stating the consequence before explaining how consumers were lured through advertising and loans; S appears too late, breaking the cause effect chain. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates focus only on time words or pronouns and ignore subtle cue phrases such as 'Even this would have been understandable', which obviously refers to a previously described situation. Always ask: what is being evaluated in such a sentence? If the answer is another sentence that has not yet appeared, then that sentence must come earlier. Also, keep track of the overall story: context first, process next, consequence after that and evaluative comment last. Final Answer: The most logical and coherent order of the sentences is R S P Q, corresponding to option RSPQ.

Question 14

In the following question, a sentence has been given in one voice. Out of the four alternatives suggested, select the one which best expresses the same meaning in the other voice. 'John was arrested on a charge of murder, but for lack of evidence he…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This active passive voice question asks you to find the alternative that expresses the same meaning as the original sentence but switches the focus between subject and object. The original sentence is in passive voice and describes both John's arrest and his subsequent release due to lack of evidence. You must identify the option that correctly puts this information into an appropriate active voice form without changing the sense. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: 'John was arrested on a charge of murder, but for lack of evidence he was released.' - The implied agent of the actions 'was arrested' and 'was released' is the police. - Options include both active and passive variations, but only one properly converts to active voice for the main actions while preserving meaning and tense. Concept / Approach: In passive voice, the object of an action appears as the grammatical subject. Here, 'John' is the person affected by the actions 'was arrested' and 'was released'. To change to active voice, we must make the doer explicit, typically 'the police', and keep the same time reference (simple past). The best active version will therefore be: 'The police arrested John on a charge of murder, but for lack of evidence released him.' This sentence uses simple past active verbs 'arrested' and 'released' with 'the police' as subject and 'John/him' as object, while keeping the cause 'for lack of evidence' unchanged. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the two main actions in the original: 'was arrested' and 'was released'. Step 2: Recognise that the doer of both actions is the police, though not mentioned in the passive sentence. Step 3: Convert 'was arrested' to active: 'The police arrested John on a charge of murder.' Step 4: Convert 'he was released' to active: '(The police) released him for lack of evidence.' Step 5: Combine the two parts into a single sentence: 'The police arrested John on a charge of murder, but for lack of evidence released him.' Verification / Alternative check: Option (a) exactly matches the active reconstruction and preserves the contrast introduced by 'but', so it is correct. Option (b) keeps the sentence in passive voice and therefore does not switch the voice as required. Option (c) repeats the original mixed structure with both the police and passive clause, which is awkward and still partly passive. Option (d) changes the tense unnecessarily to past perfect ('had been arrested', 'had been released'), which alters the time relation and is not demanded by the original simple past sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (b) is wrong because it remains entirely in passive voice; there is no change in the grammatical focus. Option (c) awkwardly mixes active and passive without improving clarity, and still leaves 'he was released' in passive voice. Option (d) is wrong because it uses past perfect, suggesting the arrest and release happened before some other past reference point, which is not indicated in the original sentence. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes focus only on one part of a complex sentence when changing voice and forget to adjust the second action, or they unnecessarily change the tense in the process. When dealing with multiple clauses, always convert each main verb while preserving the original tense and logical connectors like 'but'. Also remember that adding the agent ('the police') is essential when you move from passive to active forms in such exam questions. Final Answer: The correct alternative is 'The police arrested John on a charge of murder, but for lack of evidence released him.'

Question 15

In the following question, a sentence has been given in Direct speech. Out of the four alternatives suggested, select the one which best expresses the same sentence in Indirect (Reported) speech. 'He said, "I saw a snake here."'

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This Direct and Indirect speech question tests your understanding of tense changes, place word changes and proper structure when reporting a past statement. The original sentence is 'He said, "I saw a snake here."' You must convert it into reported speech without quotation marks, following the usual grammar rules applied when the reporting verb is in the past tense. Given Data / Assumptions: - Direct speech: 'He said, "I saw a snake here."' - Reporting verb: 'said' (simple past). - Reported clause: 'I saw a snake here.' - The speaker is 'he'; 'I' in the quote refers back to 'he' in reported speech. Concept / Approach: When converting from Direct to Indirect speech and the reporting verb is in the past tense, we usually backshift the tense in the reported clause: simple past becomes past perfect ('saw' becomes 'had seen'). Pronouns are changed according to the speaker and context: 'I' (the speaker) becomes 'he'. Place words like 'here' usually change to 'there' when reporting later from a different location. We introduce the reported clause with 'that'. Putting this together gives 'He said that he had seen a snake there.' Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Change the pronoun: 'I' becomes 'he' because the speaker is 'he'. Step 2: Backshift the tense: the original 'saw' (simple past) becomes 'had seen' (past perfect) after the past reporting verb 'said'. Step 3: Change the place adverb 'here' to 'there' to reflect indirect reporting from a different place. Step 4: Introduce the reported clause with 'that': 'He said that he had seen a snake there.' Verification / Alternative check: Option (a) is 'He said that he had seen a snake there.', which matches all the necessary changes of pronoun, tense and place word, and keeps the meaning that at some earlier time he saw a snake at that place. Option (b) keeps both the original tense 'saw' and the word 'here', which is not the standard transformation in reported speech when the context has changed. Option (c) changes only 'here' to 'there' but does not backshift the tense. Option (d) backshifts the tense correctly but drops the place word entirely, which is an unnecessary loss of information. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (b) 'He said that he saw a snake here.' is wrong because it uses 'here', which is inappropriate once the sentence is detached from the original speech situation, and it does not change the tense from simple past to past perfect. Option (c) 'He said that he saw a snake there.' corrects the place word but still keeps simple past 'saw', which does not follow the usual backshifting rule under a past reporting verb. Option (d) 'He said that he had seen a snake.' correctly uses past perfect but omits 'here/there', losing the location information present in the original sentence. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to apply only one rule and forget the others; for example, some students change 'here' to 'there' but forget to backshift the tense, or they change the tense but overlook pronoun changes. When converting to indirect speech, form a checklist in your mind: 1) adjust pronouns, 2) backshift tense if needed, 3) change time and place words (now/then, here/there, today/that day) and 4) remove quotation marks, introducing the clause with 'that' when appropriate. Final Answer: The correct reported speech form is 'He said that he had seen a snake there.'

Question 16

In the following passage, some words have been left out. Read the passage carefully and select the correct answer for the given blank. 'Morality is _____ with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions right or wrong.'

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cloze test question comes from a passage contrasting morality, ethics and politics. The sentence 'Morality is _____ with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions right or wrong.' needs a verb that correctly collocates with 'morality' and 'ethics' to express the idea that morality is generally seen as the same thing as ethics. Examiners often test such academic style expressions in passages about philosophy, civics or social science. Given Data / Assumptions: - Sentence fragment: 'Morality is _____ with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions right or wrong.' - Options: 'discussed', 'identified', 'recognised', 'rectified'. - The passage is making a general statement about the relationship between morality and ethics. Concept / Approach: The most natural formal phrase here is 'Morality is identified with ethics', meaning that people often treat morality and ethics as the same or equate them. 'Identified with' in philosophical or academic writing means 'regarded as identical to'. 'Discussed with', 'recognised with' or 'rectified with' do not form standard collocations and fail to express this idea of being treated as the same thing. Therefore, 'identified' is the correct choice to complete the sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the idea: the passage is likely stating that morality and ethics are closely connected and often considered equivalent. Step 2: Test 'discussed': 'Morality is discussed with ethics' sounds awkward and suggests a joint discussion rather than equivalence. Step 3: Test 'identified': 'Morality is identified with ethics' is a standard academic expression meaning morality is treated as the same as ethics. Step 4: Test 'recognised': 'Morality is recognised with ethics' is not correct usage; we usually say 'recognised as' or 'recognised for'. Step 5: Test 'rectified': 'Morality is rectified with ethics' does not make sense; 'rectify' means to correct something and does not take 'with ethics' as a natural complement. Verification / Alternative check: Consider how textbooks talk about these concepts: they often say 'morality is often identified with ethics' or 'morality is closely related to ethics'. The verb 'identify' in passive voice plus 'with' is commonly used to express equivalence or close association. None of the other verbs form such a recognised phrase in philosophical writing. So 'identified' best fits both the grammar pattern and the philosophical discussion of concepts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Discussed' is wrong because it focuses on debate or conversation and would normally be used as 'discussed along with', not 'is discussed with'. 'Recognised' is wrong here because 'recognised with' is not a standard combination; we might say 'recognised as equivalent to', but that wording is not offered. 'Rectified' is wrong because it means corrected or put right and does not describe a relationship between two abstract concepts like morality and ethics. Common Pitfalls: Some learners see 'recognised' and think about respect or acknowledgement and may choose it mistakenly. Others may try to force a meaning onto 'discussed' or 'rectified'. In cloze tests, always pay attention to typical word pairings (collocations) in academic language. Phrases like 'identifed with', 'concerned with', 'related to' are common, while 'recognised with' or 'rectified with' are not. Learning such patterns helps you quickly eliminate unsuitable choices. Final Answer: The correct word to complete the sentence is identified, giving 'Morality is identified with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions right or wrong.'

Question 17

In the same passage on morality and politics, choose the word that best completes the sentence 'Politics is the _____ of expediency and need not always be _____.' for the blank 'Politics is the _____ of expediency.'

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cloze test item continues the philosophical passage contrasting morality with politics. After stating that 'Morality is identified with ethics', the passage moves on to say 'Politics is the _____ of expediency and need not always be _____.' You must choose the word that fits the well known description of politics in terms of expediency and matches formal English usage in such discussions. Given Data / Assumptions: - Fragment: 'Politics is the _____ of expediency and need not always be _____.' - Options for the blank 'Politics is the _____ of expediency': 'art', 'collection', 'requirement', 'notion'. - The passage is written in a philosophical style, contrasting morality (ethics) with politics (expediency). Concept / Approach: There is a familiar expression in political theory that describes politics as 'the art of expediency'. Here 'art' means practical skill in achieving goals, often by choosing what is convenient or advantageous rather than what is morally ideal. Saying 'politics is the art of expediency' fits this tradition and sounds natural in philosophical prose. The other options do not form standard or meaningful combinations: 'collection of expediency', 'requirement of expediency' and 'notion of expediency' all sound forced and do not capture the idea that politics is a practical skill in using expediency. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the contrast: morality is tied to ethics and right or wrong, whereas politics is linked to expediency (what is practical or advantageous). Step 2: Think of common phrases: 'the art of war', 'the art of negotiation', 'the art of politics', where 'art' refers to practical skill and craft. Step 3: Insert 'art': 'Politics is the art of expediency' expresses that politics involves the practical skill of choosing what is expedient. Step 4: Test 'collection': 'Politics is the collection of expediency' does not make sense logically; politics is not a pile of expedient things. Step 5: Test 'requirement': 'Politics is the requirement of expediency' sounds unnatural and does not reflect standard usage. Step 6: Test 'notion': 'Politics is the notion of expediency' lacks clarity and does not express that politics is a practice or craft. Verification / Alternative check: Read the full sentence with 'art': 'Politics is the art of expediency and need not always be moral.' This aligns well with how political thinkers often speak of politics as the art of the possible or the art of compromise. Substituting 'collection', 'requirement' or 'notion' produces clumsy, unidiomatic sentences that would not appear in serious writing on this topic. Therefore, 'art' is the word that best maintains both meaning and style. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 'Collection' is wrong because it refers to a group of things and does not describe a practice, craft or discipline. 'Requirement' is wrong because politics is not itself a requirement of expediency; rather, it often uses expedient means. 'Notion' is wrong because it merely suggests an idea or concept and does not capture the sense of skillful practice which 'art' conveys in this philosophical context. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes overlook well known philosophical or political phrases and instead choose words that seem abstract, like 'notion' or 'requirement'. In cloze tests, it is important to think about common collocations and classic expressions. Phrases such as 'art of expediency' and 'art of the possible' are already established in political commentary, and recognising them allows you to pick the right option quickly. Final Answer: The correct word for the blank is art, giving the sentence 'Politics is the art of expediency and need not always be ...'.

Question 18

In the following passage, some of the words have been left out. Read the passage carefully and, for the blank that describes whether politics needs to be morally correct, select the correct answer out of the four alternatives. Morality is identical …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is based on a short moral and political philosophy passage. The passage contrasts morality, which is closely linked with ethics and the idea of right and wrong, with politics, which is described as the science of expediency. Your task is to choose the word that best completes the sentence Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be ______ so that the overall argument of the passage remains logically consistent and meaningful. Given Data / Assumptions: - Morality is described as identical with ethics and as a doctrine about actions being right or wrong. - Politics is called the science of expediency. - Politics need not always be something that morality demands. - If something is wrong but merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable in a moral sense. - Options: wrong, right, neutral, different. Concept / Approach: The central contrast in the passage is between morality, which insists on right and wrong, and politics, which is said to operate on expediency. Expediency means doing what is immediately useful or advantageous, even if it may not be morally ideal. Therefore, the sentence Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be ______ should highlight that political actions may fail to meet moral standards of correctness. The required word must therefore express moral correctness, so that the passage clearly states that politics is not always morally right. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the contrast set up by the passage. Morality is linked with ethics and the doctrine of right and wrong, while politics is linked with expediency. Step 2: Understand that the author wants to say that politics, being driven by expediency, does not always match moral standards. Step 3: Insert each option into the blank. With wrong, the sentence becomes need not always be wrong, which suggests that politics is not always bad, weakening the moral contrast. Step 4: With right, the sentence becomes need not always be right, which clearly states that politics sometimes departs from what morality considers correct. Step 5: With neutral or different, the sentence becomes vague and fails to express the clear moral contrast that the passage is building. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, read the entire passage with the chosen option. Morality is identical with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions that are right or wrong. Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be right. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable. This sequence perfectly expresses the idea that moral judgment of right and wrong is stricter than political expediency. It also naturally leads into the statement that something wrong but expedient cannot be justified, reinforcing the moral standpoint. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Wrong: Saying politics need not always be wrong suggests that politics is usually wrong but occasionally correct, which is not the intended philosophical point. Neutral: Neutral does not directly relate to moral evaluation. Politics may be neutral in some sense, but that does not support the contrast between morality and expediency. Different: Different is far too vague. It does not tell us different from what, and it fails to express any moral judgment. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to choose wrong because students focus on the idea of politics being morally suspect. However, the structure need not always be wrong does not fit the flow of reasoning. Another pitfall is ignoring the earlier phrase right or wrong in the description of morality. The author clearly wants to reuse this moral vocabulary when describing politics. The safest strategy in such cloze tests is to read the entire passage, identify the central contrast or argument, and then choose the word that best strengthens that line of thought. Final Answer: The sentence should read that politics need not always be morally correct, so the correct word for the blank is right.

Question 19

In the following passage, some of the words have been left out. Read the passage carefully and, for the blank describing how expedient an action is, select the correct answer out of the four alternatives. Morality is identical with ethics and symbol…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question continues the passage contrasting morality and politics. Morality is concerned with right and wrong, while politics is described as the science of expediency. The focus here is on a sentence about an action that is morally wrong but still convenient or useful in a narrow sense. You must choose the adverb that best completes the phrase if something is wrong and ______ expedient, it cannot be justifiable so that the moral argument becomes clear and natural. Given Data / Assumptions: - Morality deals with ethical right and wrong. - Politics deals with expediency. - The sentence in question reads: If something is wrong and ______ expedient, it cannot be justifiable. - Options: merely, essentially, surely, hardly. - The adverb must describe the type of expediency. Concept / Approach: The author wants to highlight that even if an action is useful or convenient in a practical sense, that alone does not make it morally acceptable. The adverb needed should have the sense of only or just, so that the sentence conveys that being expedient by itself does not provide moral justification. The word merely precisely carries this meaning of only and emphasises that expediency, when detached from morality, is insufficient. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the structure if something is wrong and ______ expedient, it cannot be justifiable. Step 2: Interpret the idea. The writer is saying that moral wrongness outweighs practical usefulness, so the expediency is only of a narrow kind. Step 3: Test merely. The phrase wrong and merely expedient means morally wrong but only practically convenient, making the conclusion it cannot be justifiable very logical. Step 4: Test essentially. Wrong and essentially expedient is confusing because essentially suggests core nature, not a narrow, limited usefulness. Step 5: Test surely and hardly. Surely expedient means certainly expedient, and hardly expedient means almost not expedient. Neither creates the intended contrast between moral wrongness and mere practical benefit. Verification / Alternative check: Read the full argument with the candidate word. Morality is identical with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions that are right or wrong. Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be right. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable. This sequence states clearly that even when political actions appear useful in a short term sense, if they are morally wrong, they are not justified. With any other adverb, the sentence becomes either awkward or confusing and loses this precise moral emphasis. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Essentially is wrong because it suggests that expediency is part of the essential nature of the action, which does not support the idea that expediency is a shallow benefit. Surely is wrong because it only expresses certainty and does not contrast moral wrongness with narrow practicality. Hardly is wrong because wrong and hardly expedient would mean the action is not even very expedient, which would weaken the need for the strong moral conclusion. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake in cloze tests is to choose words that fit grammatically but not logically. All four adverbs can grammatically precede expedient, but only one supports the central idea of the passage. Whenever a passage develops a moral or logical argument, you should check how each option affects that argument. Ask whether the sentence still supports the same conclusion. Here, only merely sets up the strong conclusion that expediency alone can never justify a morally wrong act. Final Answer: The sentence should emphasise that expediency alone is not enough, so the correct word for the blank is merely.

Question 20

In the following passage, some of the words have been left out. Read the passage carefully and, for the final moral judgment, select the correct answer out of the four alternatives. Morality is identical with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of ac…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question completes the philosophical passage contrasting morality and politics. The passage explains that morality is concerned with ethical right and wrong, whereas politics is often driven by expediency. The final sentence states that if an action is wrong but convenient, a certain moral conclusion follows. Your task is to select the word that best expresses this conclusion and preserves the logic of the passage. Given Data / Assumptions: - Morality is linked with ethics and the doctrine of right and wrong actions. - Politics is described as the science of expediency and may not always be right. - The sentence under focus is: If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be ______. - Options: justifiable, relevant, acquired, immoral. - The blank will contain the final moral verdict on such an action. Concept / Approach: The passage contrasts moral standards with political expediency. If morality declares an action wrong, and politics finds it useful or expedient, the writer wants to insist that moral judgment must prevail. Therefore, the word in the blank should explicitly say that such an action cannot be defended or excused. The adjective justifiable does exactly this: it states that no sound justification can be given. The other options either do not express a moral verdict or directly contradict the structure of the sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that wrong already states the moral status of the action. Merely expedient says that it is only practically useful. Step 2: The conclusion must therefore say that such an action cannot be defended or excused in moral reasoning. Step 3: Insert justifiable. The sentence then reads If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable, which clearly fits the moral argument. Step 4: Insert relevant. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be relevant does not follow. An action can be wrong yet still be relevant to a situation, so this breaks the logic. Step 5: Insert acquired or immoral. Acquired does not convey any moral evaluation, and immoral would create repetition and logical confusion because the sentence would read If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be immoral, which contradicts the earlier word wrong. Verification / Alternative check: Read the entire passage with the chosen answer. Morality is identical with ethics and symbolises the doctrine of actions that are right or wrong. Politics is the science of expediency and need not always be right. If something is wrong and merely expedient, it cannot be justifiable. The conclusion follows smoothly from the earlier lines and powerfully states the moral message that usefulness alone never excuses wrong actions. Replacing justifiable with any other option either creates illogical repetition or ruins the clarity of the moral stance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Relevant is wrong because relevance is about connection to a topic or situation, not moral defence. A wrong action can still be relevant. Acquired is wrong because it refers to something gained or obtained and carries no moral judgment in this context. Immoral is wrong because the sentence already states that the action is wrong, and saying it cannot be immoral would amount to a contradiction. Common Pitfalls: A common error in such cloze passages is to focus on individual word meanings without checking the internal logic of the sentence. Some test takers choose immoral simply because it is another moral word, without noticing that it clashes with the phrase something is wrong in the same sentence. Others pick relevant because it looks sophisticated. A better strategy is to paraphrase the argument in simple language: if an action is morally wrong, its practical benefits cannot justify it. From this paraphrase, justifiable becomes the only logical and natural choice. Final Answer: The passage asserts that moral wrongness cannot be defended by usefulness, so the correct word for the blank is justifiable.

English Questions