Question 1

Continuing the passage on science and religion, consider the line: "Any religious experience, whether it is that of Christ or of Ramakrishna, is personal and _____." Choose the word that best completes the description of this kind of religious exper…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cloze test sentence clearly focuses on the nature of religious experience. In the passage, the author contrasts objective scientific work with personal religious insight. The blank appears in a sentence that describes religious experience as personal and something else. You need to select the option that fits both the philosophical contrast and the wording used elsewhere in the passage. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Any religious experience, whether it is that of Christ or of Ramakrishna, is personal and _____. The next sentence explains that science is marked by objectivity. The author emphasises that religion is based on experience and that science emphasises objective proof. Options: significant, irrelevant, subjective, objective. Concept / Approach: The key contrast in the passage is between subjective religious experience and objective scientific method. A personal experience is by definition subjective, because it is shaped by individual feelings and perceptions. Science, in contrast, aims for objectivity so that results do not depend on any one observer. Therefore, the blank should be filled with subjective, which directly states that religious experiences belong to the inner world of the individual rather than to shared, measurable facts. The other options either do not relate to this technical distinction or even clash with it. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the descriptive pair in the sentence: personal and [blank]. Personal already signals something individual and inward. Step 2: Recall that the passage describes science as marked by objectivity, and religion as based on experience, which the author wants to characterise as private and internal. Step 3: Evaluate subjective. This word is the standard partner of personal and is often contrasted with objective in philosophy and psychology. Step 4: Check significant. While religious experience may be significant, the sentence is not focusing on importance but on the type of knowledge, so this is not the best fit. Step 5: Check irrelevant. This is negative in tone and does not logically follow personal, nor does it match the overall respectful discussion of religious experience. Step 6: Check objective. The next sentence uses objectivity to describe science, so using objective here would blur the intended contrast and create confusion. Step 7: Conclude that subjective is the only option that both fits the phrase personal and prepares the way for the contrast with objectivity in the following sentence. Verification / Alternative check: Insert subjective into the line and read it with the next sentence: Any religious experience, whether it is that of Christ or of Ramakrishna, is personal and subjective. Science, on the other hand, is marked by objectivity. The contrast between subjective and objective is now very clear and sharply drawn. Substituting significant, irrelevant, or objective fails to produce this neat and meaningful opposition. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Significant talks about importance, not about the nature of knowledge. Irrelevant suggests that religious experience does not matter, which is not the author's point in this context. Objective directly contradicts the intended description of religious experience as personal and inward. Common Pitfalls: Some exam takers may be attracted to objective because they have just seen the word science in nearby sentences and remember that science is objective. However, cloze questions often test your ability to recognise contrast pairs. Whenever you see personal in a philosophical context, subjective is a very strong candidate, especially when objectivity is mentioned nearby. Watching for such standard pairs will help you select the most precise answer rather than a loosely related word. Final Answer: The correct word to complete the sentence is subjective, so we get: Any religious experience, whether it is that of Christ or of Ramakrishna, is personal and subjective.

Question 2

In the same passage, consider the sentence: "Science, on the other hand, is marked by objectivity. Theory has to be corroborated by _____ proof providing material comforts." Choose the word that best completes the blank so that the type of proof req…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cloze test sentence emphasises the difference between scientific and religious approaches. After describing religious experience as personal and subjective, the passage states that science is marked by objectivity and demands proof. The blank describes the kind of proof that scientific theories must have in order to be accepted and to lead to practical benefits. Understanding the meaning of tangible in contrast to intangible is the key to answering correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Theory has to be corroborated by _____ proof providing material comforts. Science is said to be marked by objectivity. The passage stresses that scientific theories lead to useful appliances and material improvements in life. Options: intangible, transparent, tangible, unique. Concept / Approach: The phrase proof providing material comforts suggests proof that results in concrete, physical benefits. The word tangible means something that can be touched or clearly perceived by the senses, and is often used to describe concrete, measurable results. Therefore, tangible proof is proof that shows itself in real world outcomes, such as devices, medicines, or technologies. Intangible is the opposite and refers to things that cannot be touched or easily measured. Transparent describes clarity but not necessarily physical reality, and unique means one of a kind, which is not the focus here. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the connection between proof and material comforts. Material comforts are physical benefits such as machines, tools, medicines, and other improvements in daily life. Step 2: Ask what type of proof can provide such benefits. It must be evidence that leads to practical, real world applications. Step 3: Consider tangible. This word refers to something real and concrete that can be observed or touched. Tangible proof suggests results that are clearly visible and measurable in practical life. Step 4: Examine intangible. This means not touchable or not easily measured, for example intangible feelings. Intangible proof would contradict the idea of material comforts. Step 5: Examine transparent. Transparent describes something that allows light to pass through or a process that is clear and open. Transparent proof is not a standard collocation in this context. Step 6: Examine unique. Unique means one of a kind, which does not describe the nature of scientific proof in general. Step 7: Decide that tangible is the only option that fits both the phrase tangible proof and the idea of proof leading to material comforts. Verification / Alternative check: Put tangible into the sentence and read it in context: Theory has to be corroborated by tangible proof providing material comforts. The line now states that scientific theories must be backed by concrete evidence that produces real improvements in human life, which matches the central message of the passage. Trying to substitute intangible, transparent, or unique makes the sentence either illogical or unnatural in standard English usage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Intangible conflicts with the idea of material comforts because it refers to things that cannot be touched or clearly measured. Transparent focuses on clarity rather than concrete existence and is usually applied to objects like glass or processes in governance. Unique describes something singular but does not say anything about its physical reality or practical usefulness. Common Pitfalls: In vocabulary based blanks, candidates sometimes pick impressive sounding adjectives without checking whether they form natural collocations. The phrase tangible proof is common in academic and everyday English, while combinations like transparent proof or unique proof are rare and awkward. A good strategy is to mentally test each option in the sentence and ask whether you have seen that phrase used in serious writing. If only one option feels natural and fits the context, it is usually the right choice. Final Answer: The correct word is tangible, giving: Theory has to be corroborated by tangible proof providing material comforts.

Question 3

In the final sentence of this passage we read: "The frontiers of science do not end in knowledge but are _____ to the formation of appliances for actual use." Choose the option that best completes the blank to show how scientific knowledge leads to …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cloze test question completes the author's argument about science. After explaining that scientific theories must be supported by tangible proof and that they yield material comforts, the passage states that the frontiers of science do not stop at knowledge itself. Instead, they reach outward into the realm of useful applications. The blank describes this reaching out, and you must select a verb that captures the idea of stretching from pure knowledge into technology. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The frontiers of science do not end in knowledge but are _____ to the formation of appliances for actual use. The passage highlights that science moves beyond theory to create tools and appliances. Options: implied, associated, designated, extended. We need a word that shows continuation or stretching beyond a limit. Concept / Approach: The phrase frontiers of science suggests boundaries that can be pushed outward. The contrast do not end in knowledge but are [blank] to the formation of appliances signals that the boundaries go beyond pure theory into practical production. Extended is the natural verb for this context, as it means stretched out or carried further. Implied means suggested indirectly, associated means connected, and designated means officially named or assigned. None of these alternatives clearly express the idea of boundaries pushing outwards from knowledge to application. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the phrase do not end in knowledge. This tells you that the boundaries of science go further than simple understanding. Step 2: Consider what the boundaries go into: the formation of appliances for actual use. This means science leads to practical devices and technologies. Step 3: Examine extended. The frontiers of science are extended to the formation of appliances is a natural way to say that the reach of science continues beyond knowledge into application. Step 4: Evaluate implied. If frontiers were implied to the formation of appliances, the sentence would be unclear and unidiomatic, because frontiers themselves are not described as implied to something. Step 5: Evaluate associated. Associated suggests a loose connection, not a continuation or stretching of boundaries, so it does not match the image of frontiers moving outward. Step 6: Evaluate designated. Designated is usually used with positions and roles, such as designated leader, and does not describe the movement of frontiers. Step 7: Conclude that extended is the only option that sensibly describes how the frontiers of science reach into the world of practical appliances. Verification / Alternative check: Insert extended and read the sentence with the rest of the passage: The frontiers of science do not end in knowledge but are extended to the formation of appliances for actual use. This clearly summarises the idea that scientific investigation leads not just to understanding but also to practical devices that improve everyday life. Substituting implied, associated, or designated makes the sentence confusing or ungrammatical, because these words do not match the metaphor of frontiers. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Implied would normally require a subject such as meaning or intention and does not pair with frontiers in this way. Associated implies a link without direction or movement and fails to show that the boundaries of science move from one area to another. Designated is used to label people or places and therefore does not fit with the description of scientific progress. Common Pitfalls: In cloze tests, some students pick associated because it feels comfortably vague and often appears in academic writing. However, the best strategy is to pay attention to metaphors in the sentence. The metaphor of frontiers suggests movement, expansion, and extension, all of which align with extended. Once you recognise this, it becomes much easier to eliminate options that do not support the image of science pushing its boundaries into new domains. Final Answer: The correct completion is extended, so the sentence reads: The frontiers of science do not end in knowledge but are extended to the formation of appliances for actual use.

Question 4

In the following question, a sentence contains an underlined part: "Go north east across the mountains till you will reach an island." Choose the option that best improves the underlined part to make the sentence grammatically correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on the use of tenses and conjunctions in instructions. The original sentence gives a direction about travelling across mountains and reaching an island. The issue is with the use of will after till. Understanding how future time is expressed in clauses introduced by till, until, when, and similar conjunctions is essential to choosing the correct option. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: Go north east across the mountains till you will reach an island. The underlined part is till you will reach an island. Available improvements include different verb forms after till, as well as a No improvement option. The sentence expresses a future result of a present instruction. Concept / Approach: In English, when we use time conjunctions such as when, after, before, till, or until to refer to future time, we normally use the simple present tense in the time clause, not will. The future sense is understood from the main clause or overall context. Therefore, after till we should write you reach rather than you will reach. This rule applies especially in instructions and directions, where the main verb is in the imperative form such as go or turn. The grammatically correct structure is therefore till you reach an island. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main clause and the time clause. Main clause: Go north east across the mountains. Time or limiting clause: till you will reach an island. Step 2: Recall the rule that clauses introduced by till or until referring to the future use the simple present tense rather than will plus base verb. Step 3: Replace will reach with reach to form till you reach an island, which expresses a future point in time in a grammatically correct way. Step 4: Check option B, which gives till you reach an island. This matches the required pattern and keeps the meaning unchanged. Step 5: Evaluate option A, till you reached an island, which uses simple past and does not fit with the imperative Go. Step 6: Evaluate option C, till you have reached an island, which uses the present perfect and is not natural in directions of this type. Step 7: Reject No improvement because the original expression till you will reach an island violates the standard rule for time clauses. Verification / Alternative check: Compare with other correct examples: Wait here till I come back, Stay here until it gets dark, Do not move until I say so. In each case, the clause after till or until uses the simple present tense even though it refers to a future action. The sentence Go north east across the mountains till you reach an island follows the same pattern. Any version with will after till would sound unusual and be marked as incorrect in standard written English. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A, till you reached an island, implies a past event and does not suit an instruction that is being given now. Option C, till you have reached an island, uses the present perfect in a way that suggests a prior condition rather than a simple future point; it is rarely used in straightforward directional sentences. Option D fails to correct the misuse of will in the original sentence, so it cannot be accepted. Common Pitfalls: Students often carry over the use of will from main clauses into time clauses because they know the overall event is in the future. However, English has a special rule that future events introduced by time conjunctions take the simple present in those clauses. Remembering examples such as when you arrive, call me and till you finish, stay here can help you develop a natural feel for this pattern and avoid adding will in the wrong place. Final Answer: The correct improvement is till you reach an island.

Question 5

In the following sentence, an underlined phrase needs to be checked: "It is hard these days to cope with the rising prices." Choose the option that best improves the underlined part, or select No improvement if the sentence is already correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests your knowledge of the correct prepositional verb combination with cope. Many learners of English are tempted to add extra particles such as up to verbs where they are not needed. The sentence describes how difficult it is to manage or handle rising prices, and you must decide whether the phrase cope with the rising prices is correct or needs to be changed. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: It is hard these days to cope with the rising prices. The underlined part is cope with the rising prices. Options offer various combinations: cope by, cope up with, to be coped with, and No improvement. The intended meaning is that it is difficult to manage or deal with the increasing cost of living. Concept / Approach: In standard English, the correct phrasal verb is cope with, which means deal successfully with a difficult situation or problem. Cope by is not idiomatic, and cope up with is a common but incorrect form influenced by some regional usages. The passive phrase to be coped with the rising prices is awkward and does not fit the sentence structure. Therefore, the original phrase cope with the rising prices is already correct and requires no improvement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the phrasal verb in the sentence, which is cope with. Step 2: Recall that cope with means handle or deal with. It is a fixed combination where with introduces the object, such as cope with stress or cope with pressure. Step 3: Examine option A, cope by the rising prices. Cope by does not form a recognised phrasal verb and changes the meaning. Step 4: Examine option B, cope up with the rising prices. Although cope up with is sometimes heard in informal speech, it is not accepted as correct in formal English or in competitive examinations. Step 5: Examine option C, to be coped with the rising prices. This passive structure is ungrammatical in this context and makes the sentence unclear. Step 6: Recognise that the original cope with the rising prices is a correct and natural expression, so the best choice is No improvement. Verification / Alternative check: Compare the sentence to other standard examples: It is hard to cope with stress, She can cope with any challenge, They struggled to cope with the workload. In each case, cope with introduces the problem or difficulty. Using cope by or cope up with in those examples would sound incorrect to a native speaker and would be marked wrong in formal tests. Thus, the pattern in the question aligns with accepted usage. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Cope by suggests using something as a means rather than naming the problem being handled, which does not match the usual pattern of cope with plus difficulty. Cope up with is a common error that examiners often include as a distractor. To be coped with suggests that the subject is handled by something else, which is not what the sentence intends to say. Common Pitfalls: One common confusion arises from similar looking phrasal verbs like put up with or keep up with, which may lead learners to add up after cope. However, cope does not take up in standard usage. To avoid such errors, it is useful to learn common verbs together with their fixed prepositions or particles as complete units and to read widely in order to see them in real contexts. This helps you confidently recognise when no improvement is required. Final Answer: The sentence is already correct, so the right choice is No improvement.

Question 6

In the sentence "He took a loan of hundred rupees from me.", the underlined phrase needs to be checked. Choose the option that best improves the underlined expression, or select no improvement if it is already correct in standard English.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests standard usage of common financial terms such as loan, debt, demand, and advance. The sentence describes a person taking a small sum of money from someone else. You must decide whether the word loan is appropriate or whether one of the proposed substitutions expresses the intended meaning more accurately in everyday English. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: He took a loan of hundred rupees from me. The underlined portion is a loan of hundred rupees. Options: debt, demand, advance, and no improvement. The context is a small personal borrowing of money. Concept / Approach: A loan is a sum of money that is borrowed and expected to be paid back, sometimes with interest. This is exactly what the sentence describes. A debt is a broader term for an amount owed, but we do not usually say took a debt; instead, we say incurred a debt or ran into debt. Demand is not a synonym here, and advance is used for money given before it is due, such as an advance payment or salary advance. Thus, the original phrase took a loan of hundred rupees is the most natural and correct in this context, except that an article a is usually added before hundred. Since the options focus on the key noun, loan is still the best choice, so no improvement is required with respect to that noun. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the meaning conveyed: the person borrowed money from the speaker. Step 2: Check the usage of loan. The collocation take a loan is very common when someone borrows money, for example, He took a loan from the bank. Step 3: Evaluate debt. In English, one does not normally say took a debt. Instead, one has a debt, is in debt, or gets into debt, so substituting debt would result in unidiomatic usage. Step 4: Evaluate demand. Demand refers to a request or need for something and has nothing to do with borrowing money in this structure. Step 5: Evaluate advance. An advance is money given ahead of time, usually by an employer or buyer. The sentence does not indicate that the speaker is giving money in advance of some service or obligation, so advance is not the most accurate word here. Step 6: Conclude that loan is the correct term to describe money that is borrowed to be repaid later, so the best choice is no improvement. Verification / Alternative check: Recast the sentence slightly to correct the missing article and test the collocation: He took a loan of a hundred rupees from me. In this form, it is a natural and standard English sentence. Replacing loan with debt would require a different verb, such as He incurred a debt of a hundred rupees, which is not one of the given choices. Similarly, He took a demand or He took an advance from me for a hundred rupees changes the meaning or sounds odd. These tests confirm that loan is appropriate in this context. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Debt refers to an amount owed but does not pair comfortably with the verb took in everyday English. Demand has an entirely different sense related to requests or claims. Advance is not wrong in all situations, but here there is no indication of payment before a service; the simpler and more accurate description is a loan. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates misinterpret such questions and try to correct every small detail, like the missing article, even when the aim of the question is to test the key noun. Remember that sentence improvement items often focus on one main point. When the noun already captures the correct financial relationship and alternative nouns would distort the meaning, it is safer to choose no improvement and accept that minor issues like a missing a can be repaired separately in editing. Final Answer: The expression with respect to the main noun is already correct, so the right choice is no improvement.

Question 7

In the sentence "From the last five days it has been raining torrentially.", the underlined phrase needs to be checked. Select the option that best improves this time expression, or choose No improvement if the original is correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on the correct use of prepositions with time expressions, especially when describing a situation that started in the past and continues up to the present. The sentence uses the present perfect continuous tense has been raining torrentially, which normally pairs with specific time expressions like for the last five days or since Monday. The task is to select the preposition that forms an idiomatic phrase with the last five days. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: From the last five days it has been raining torrentially. The underlined part is From the last five days. Options: Since the last, for the last, Since last, No improvement. The intended meaning is that the heavy rain started five days ago and has continued up to now. Concept / Approach: In English, for is used with periods of time to express duration, as in for three hours, for two weeks, for many years. Since is used with a point in time, such as since Monday or since 2010. The phrase the last five days refers to a duration, not a specific starting date, so it should be introduced by for, not since or from. Therefore, the correct expression in the context of the present perfect continuous tense is for the last five days. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the tense used in the main clause: has been raining torrentially, which is present perfect continuous. Step 2: Recall that this tense is normally used with either since plus a starting point or for plus a length of time. Step 3: Recognise that the last five days describes a duration of time rather than a specific starting date, so it should be paired with for. Step 4: Evaluate option B, for the last, which produces for the last five days it has been raining torrentially. This is a natural and correct English sentence. Step 5: Evaluate option A, Since the last, which would give Since the last five days it has been raining, an unidiomatic and incorrect expression because since does not normally take such a phrase. Step 6: Evaluate option C, Since last, which is incomplete without a specific time unit such as Monday or week. Since last five days is not grammatical. Step 7: Reject No improvement because From the last five days is not standard usage for duration in this tense. Verification / Alternative check: Compare with other correct examples: It has been snowing for the last two hours, She has been studying for the last three months, They have been living here for the last ten years. All of these use for the last plus a period of time. Using from or since with this structure would sound incorrect to a native speaker. The sentence in the question follows exactly the same pattern, so for the last five days is the only acceptable choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Since the last five days mixes the point in time use of since with a period of time, which is not how English marks duration. Since last by itself is incomplete and would need a noun such as year or week to make sense. No improvement would preserve the unidiomatic from the last five days, which should be changed to for the last five days. Common Pitfalls: Learners frequently confuse for and since because both are used with perfect tenses. A reliable rule is that for goes with lengths of time and since goes with starting points. When you see phrases like the last three days or many years, you should think of them as durations and choose for accordingly. Practising with many examples will help fix this difference in your mind and improve your accuracy in error spotting and sentence improvement questions. Final Answer: The correct improvement is for the last, giving: For the last five days it has been raining torrentially.

Question 8

In the sentence "The teacher, along with her three children, were taken to hospital.", the underlined verb phrase must agree with the subject. Choose the option that best improves the verb phrase, or select No improvement if the sentence is already …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests subject verb agreement when the subject is followed by an additional phrase. The sentence mentions the teacher and then adds a modifying phrase along with her three children. Many learners mistakenly think that the presence of three children makes the subject plural, but in reality the verb must agree with the main subject of the sentence, which is singular. Correcting the verb form is the focus of this sentence improvement item. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The teacher, along with her three children, were taken to hospital. The underlined part is were taken. Options: was taken, had taken, had being taken, No improvement. The phrase along with her three children is a parenthetical addition, not a second subject. Concept / Approach: When a singular subject is followed by a phrase starting with along with, together with, accompanied by, or similar expressions, the verb still agrees with the main subject and remains singular. Here the main subject is the teacher, which is singular. Therefore, the verb should also be singular, that is, was taken. The verb phrase had taken changes the meaning to the teacher acting as a doer rather than as someone receiving action, and had being taken is grammatically incorrect. Thus, the correct choice is was taken, which keeps the passive meaning and agrees in number with the subject. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the core subject of the sentence before the comma: The teacher. Step 2: Recognise that the phrase along with her three children is a modifier that adds extra information but does not function as part of a compound subject. Step 3: Determine the correct number of the subject. The teacher is singular, so the verb should also be singular. Step 4: Examine the original verb were taken, which is plural and therefore incorrect for a singular subject. Step 5: Select was taken as the correct singular passive form, so the sentence reads The teacher, along with her three children, was taken to hospital. Step 6: Check option B, had taken, which would mean the teacher had taken her children somewhere, reversing the intended meaning. Step 7: Check option C, had being taken, which is not a valid English verb form and should be rejected. Verification / Alternative check: A useful method is to temporarily remove the parenthetical phrase and read the sentence with only the core subject and verb: The teacher was taken to hospital. This is clearly correct. Adding the phrase back in as The teacher, along with her three children, was taken to hospital keeps the singular verb and still conveys that the children went with the teacher. By contrast, The teacher, along with her three children, were taken to hospital fails the subject verb agreement test, because were does not agree with the singular teacher. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Had taken changes the voice from passive to active and suggests that the teacher acted on something, which does not fit the original meaning. Had being taken is simply not grammatical and does not appear in standard English. No improvement would preserve the incorrect plural verb were taken. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to look only at the noun closest to the verb, in this case children, and let that drive the choice of a plural verb. To avoid this mistake, always identify the main subject before any commas or interrupting phrases and make the verb agree with that subject. Phrases starting with along with, together with, as well as, and similar expressions do not change the number of the subject in formal English grammar. Final Answer: The correct improvement is was taken, giving: The teacher, along with her three children, was taken to hospital.

Question 9

In the sentence "The Prime Minister had wide-ranging discussions on the international situation.", the underlined expression needs to be checked. Choose the option that best improves the phrase, or select No improvement if it is already correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on the correct form of a compound adjective that modifies discussions. The phrase wide ranging is common in political and diplomatic contexts to describe talks that cover many topics. You must decide whether wide ranging has been used correctly or whether one of the alternative forms is more appropriate in standard English. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The Prime Minister had wide-ranging discussions on the international situation. The underlined part is wide-ranging. Options: widely-ranged, wide-ranged, wide-range, and No improvement. The intended meaning is that the discussions covered a broad variety of issues. Concept / Approach: In English, wide ranging is a fixed compound adjective used to describe something that covers many different subjects or areas. It is normally written as wide ranging or wide-ranging. The alternatives in the options are either adverbs plus participles or incorrectly formed compounds that do not exist in standard usage. Since wide-ranging is already correct and idiomatic here, the best option is No improvement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the meaning of the sentence. The Prime Minister had discussions that covered many topics in the international situation. Step 2: Recall that wide-ranging discussions is a standard expression used in newspapers, reports, and diplomatic language. Step 3: Evaluate widely-ranged. Widely is an adverb and ranged is a past participle, but the phrase widely-ranged discussions is not a recognised idiom in English. Step 4: Evaluate wide-ranged. The past participle ranged does not usually combine with wide to form an adjective; wide-ranging is the established pattern. Step 5: Evaluate wide-range. This would require a noun after it, as in wide-range discussions, but the usual collocation is wide-ranging discussions, not wide-range discussions. Step 6: Recognise that the original wide-ranging discussions is already correct, so No improvement is the best response. Verification / Alternative check: Look at common examples from reliable English sources: wide-ranging reforms, wide-ranging powers, wide-ranging interview. In each case, the hyphenated compound adjective wide-ranging describes something that covers a large scope. Substituting widely-ranged, wide-ranged, or wide-range would sound unfamiliar and be considered incorrect by native speakers. Therefore, the given phrase wide-ranging discussions matches standard usage and does not require modification. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Widely-ranged incorrectly combines an adverb and a past participle in a way that does not produce a recognised adjectival phrase. Wide-ranged is not a standard compound adjective and is seldom, if ever, used. Wide-range would be a noun phrase and would require a different structure, such as discussions of wide range, which still would not be the usual expression. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes assume that any underlined portion must contain an error, but sentence improvement questions often include correctly written phrases to test whether you can recognise them. It is important to be familiar with common collocations and fixed expressions so that you choose No improvement with confidence when appropriate. Reading quality English texts regularly will help you internalise such patterns and avoid unnecessary changes. Final Answer: The phrase is already correct, so the right choice is No improvement.

Question 10

In the sentence "The man disappeared after he was rescuing a boy from drowning.", the underlined verb phrase needs correction. Choose the option that best improves the underlined part, or select No improvement if the sentence is already correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement item checks whether you can choose the correct tense and aspect to show the order of two past actions. The sentence describes a man who disappeared and also performed a rescue. The verb phrase after he was rescuing a boy from drowning is incorrect because it uses the past continuous in a way that does not clearly mark the completion of one action before another. You must select the form that shows that the rescue was completed before the disappearance. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The man disappeared after he was rescuing a boy from drowning. The underlined part is he was rescuing a boy from drowning. Options: was rescued, has been rescued, had rescued, No improvement. The intended meaning is that the man rescued a boy and then disappeared. Concept / Approach: To express that one past action happened before another past action, English commonly uses the past perfect tense for the earlier action and the simple past for the later one. In this sentence, the earlier action is rescuing the boy, and the later action is the man disappearing. Therefore, the clause after he had rescued a boy from drowning is the correct form. The other options either change the subject of the verb or use inappropriate tenses that do not fit the time relationship between the events. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the two actions: the man disappeared and he rescued a boy from drowning. Step 2: Decide which action happened first. The rescue was completed first, and the disappearance happened after that. Step 3: Apply the rule for sequence of tenses in the past. The earlier action should be in past perfect, and the later action in simple past. Step 4: Transform the earlier action into past perfect: he had rescued a boy from drowning. Step 5: Place this clause after after: The man disappeared after he had rescued a boy from drowning. Step 6: Examine option C, had rescued, which exactly produces this correct structure. Step 7: Reject the other options: was rescued makes the boy the subject, has been rescued introduces present relevance, and No improvement would leave the incorrect was rescuing. Verification / Alternative check: Compare the sentence with other standard examples: He left after he had finished the work, She went home after she had completed the exam. In each case the earlier action uses the past perfect. If we say He left after he was finishing the work, the sentence sounds wrong and fails to show that the work was completed before leaving. The structure The man disappeared after he had rescued a boy from drowning fits the same pattern and clearly shows the correct order of events. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Was rescued is passive and would mean the man was rescued by someone else, which changes the story completely. Has been rescued is a present perfect passive form and implies ongoing relevance now, which does not fit a narrative about a past event. No improvement retains was rescuing, which suggests that he disappeared while in the middle of the action, but the presence of after implies that the rescue had already been completed, so this tense is inappropriate. Common Pitfalls: Many students are unsure about when to use the past perfect and either overuse it or avoid it altogether. A helpful guideline is to reserve the past perfect for situations where you need to emphasise that one past action was completed before another. Time conjunctions such as after, before, and when often trigger this need. In such cases, using had plus past participle for the earlier action, as in had rescued, provides clarity and is favoured in formal written English. Final Answer: The correct improvement is had rescued, giving: The man disappeared after he had rescued a boy from drowning.

Question 11

In the sentence "I shall be obliged if you could grant me an interview.", the underlined phrase needs to be checked. Choose the option that best improves the underlined part, or select No improvement if the original is already correct and polite.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question focuses on formal and polite request language in English. The sentence appears to be part of a letter or application in which the writer respectfully asks for an interview. You must decide whether the phrase grant me an interview is appropriate in this formal context or whether one of the alternatives offers a better expression. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: I shall be obliged if you could grant me an interview. The underlined part is grant me an interview. Options: give, allow, permit, No improvement. The context is a polite, possibly written, request to a person in authority. Concept / Approach: In formal English, grant is a standard verb used when someone in authority gives something requested, such as a favour, permission, or an interview. Phrases such as grant me an interview, grant me leave, or grant my request are highly conventional in formal letters. While give, allow, and permit can also be used in some contexts, grant is the most natural and appropriately formal choice here. Therefore, no improvement is necessary in this part of the sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the tone and purpose of the sentence. The writer is making a courteous request and expressing that they would be obliged if the other person agreed. Step 2: Examine the verb grant. It is commonly used when talking about authorities responding to requests, for example, grant a loan, grant a licence, grant a scholarship, or grant an interview. Step 3: Consider give. Although give an interview is possible, grant is more formal and fits better with the phrase I shall be obliged if you could, which signals a very polite tone. Step 4: Consider allow. Allow me an interview is less common and sounds slightly awkward, because allow is typically followed by an infinitive (allow me to do something) rather than a noun like interview. Step 5: Consider permit. Permit me an interview also feels less natural than permit me to attend an interview; the pattern used in the sentence is better served by grant. Step 6: Note that the entire expression I shall be obliged if you could grant me an interview is a conventional and acceptable formal request, so the best answer is No improvement. Verification / Alternative check: Look at typical closing lines in application letters or formal requests: I shall be grateful if you kindly grant me an interview, I would be obliged if you could grant me leave for two days. These standard phrases use grant with abstract nouns such as interview or leave. Substituting give, allow, or permit would make the expressions less formal or grammatically awkward. This confirms that grant me an interview is the best form in a formal written context. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Give me an interview is understandable but a little informal and does not match the polite, slightly old fashioned style introduced by I shall be obliged. Allow me an interview and permit me an interview do not fit common usage patterns, where allow or permit are usually followed by an infinitive rather than a direct object like interview. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes assume that any underlined expression must be incorrect and automatically choose a replacement. However, exam questions frequently include options where the original is the best choice, particularly when it matches standard formal style. To avoid losing marks, always review whether the given phrase is already idiomatic and appropriate in context before deciding to change it. Final Answer: The phrase is already correct and suitably formal, so the correct choice is No improvement.

Question 12

In the sentence "By eight o'clock in the morning he wrote four letters to his friends.", the underlined verb phrase must match the time expression. Choose the option that best improves the verb phrase, or select No improvement if the sentence is alr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests your understanding of the past perfect tense when describing a completed action by a particular time in the past. The sentence states that by eight o'clock in the morning something had already been done. To show clearly that the action was completed before that time, the verb phrase must be chosen carefully. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: By eight o'clock in the morning he wrote four letters to his friends. The underlined part is wrote four letters. Options: had written, had been writing, was writing, No improvement. The phrase by eight o'clock in the morning indicates a deadline up to which an action was completed. Concept / Approach: When we refer to a specific time in the past and want to emphasise that an action was completed before that time, we use the past perfect tense: had plus past participle. The structure by time plus past perfect clearly marks the completion of the action before the given time. Therefore, the correct form here is By eight o'clock in the morning he had written four letters to his friends. The simple past wrote does not clearly show this prior completion relative to another past reference point. The other options either focus on the ongoing nature of the activity or change the meaning. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the time marker by eight o'clock in the morning, which signals a completed action up to a particular time. Step 2: Recall the rule that the past perfect tense is used to indicate an action completed before a specific point in the past. Step 3: Transform wrote into past perfect had written, giving he had written four letters. Step 4: Combine with the time phrase: By eight o'clock in the morning he had written four letters to his friends. Step 5: Evaluate option A, had written, which matches this structure exactly. Step 6: Evaluate option B, had been writing, which would emphasise the ongoing nature of writing and not specifically the number of letters completed. Step 7: Evaluate option C, was writing, which would usually be used with while or when to describe an action in progress at that time, not one completed by that time. Verification / Alternative check: Compare the sentence with similar examples: By ten o'clock she had finished her homework, By lunchtime they had reached the city. In all such cases, the past perfect is preferred to make clear that the action was fully completed before the specified time. Using simple past in those sentences would make the time relationship less precise. The same reasoning applies to By eight o'clock in the morning he had written four letters, which clearly expresses that all four letters were already written by that time. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Had been writing focuses on the duration or process of writing, but does not match well with a specific count of letters already written, and it also fails to emphasise completion. Was writing suggests that he was in the middle of writing at eight o'clock, rather than having already finished four letters by that time. No improvement would leave wrote, which is grammatically possible but not the best tense to show completion before a past time reference in this formal examination context. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes avoid the past perfect because they feel it is complicated, relying instead on simple past for all past actions. However, in competitive exams the past perfect is often tested through time expressions like by, before, after, and when. To avoid mistakes, remember that by plus a time in the past often calls for had plus past participle to show that something was already complete at that moment. Final Answer: The correct improvement is had written, giving: By eight o'clock in the morning he had written four letters to his friends.

Question 13

In the sentence "But for one witness the accused ought to have been sent to jail.", the underlined modal phrase needs to be checked. Choose the option that best improves this phrase, or select No improvement if the original is correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of conditional sentences and the correct use of modal verbs in hypothetical past situations. The structure but for one witness introduces a condition that did not happen in reality. In such sentences, we normally use would have plus past participle to describe what would have happened if the condition had not existed. The phrase ought to have been sent to jail in the original could suggest moral obligation rather than a pure hypothetical result, so it needs adjustment. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: But for one witness the accused ought to have been sent to jail. The underlined part is ought to have been sent. Options: would have, had, should have, No improvement. The expression but for one witness means if it had not been for one witness. Concept / Approach: In third conditional sentences that deal with unreal past conditions, English uses the structure would have plus past participle to express the result clause. The phrase but for plus noun is another way to introduce such an unreal condition. Therefore, the natural completion is the accused would have been sent to jail, indicating what would have happened in the past if the witness had not intervened. The original phrase ought to have been sent introduces a sense of duty or correctness rather than describing an unreal result, which does not match the but for pattern. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that but for one witness is equivalent to if it had not been for one witness or without one witness. Step 2: Understand that this introduces an unreal past condition, which normally uses the third conditional pattern in English. Step 3: Recall the standard result form for such conditions: would have plus past participle, here would have been sent. Step 4: Replace ought to have been sent with would have been sent to show the hypothetical result correctly. Step 5: Check option A, would have, which yields the sentence But for one witness the accused would have been sent to jail. Step 6: Evaluate option B, had, which would produce the odd structure the accused had been sent to jail, not clearly tied to the conditional meaning. Step 7: Evaluate option C, should have, which introduces a sense of advisability rather than a clear unreal result and is less precise in this structure. Verification / Alternative check: Recast the sentence fully as a third conditional: If it had not been for one witness, the accused would have been sent to jail. This version clearly shows that the accused was not sent to jail in reality, but would have been if the witness had not intervened. The more compact form But for one witness the accused would have been sent to jail expresses the same idea. Using ought to have been sent would instead sound like the speaker is judging what should have happened, not describing a hypothetical outcome that did not occur. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Had by itself cannot serve as a complete modal phrase in the result clause and would make the sentence ungrammatical. Should have suggests moral or practical advice about the past rather than a pure conditional result. No improvement would leave a mismatch between the but for structure and the chosen modal, making the sentence less accurate for an unreal past condition. Common Pitfalls: Some learners confuse ought to have and would have in conditional sentences because both can appear with past participles. A reliable rule is that would have is the default choice for result clauses in unreal past conditions, while ought to have is reserved for expressing past duties or expectations, such as He ought to have told the truth. Recognising set patterns like but for plus would have will help you choose the right modal in exam questions. Final Answer: The correct improvement is would have, giving: But for one witness the accused would have been sent to jail.

Question 14

In the sentence "He is now looking about a job.", the underlined preposition must be checked. Choose the option that best improves the phrase, or select No improvement if the sentence is already correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement item tests correct prepositional usage with the verb look. In English, different prepositions with look create different meanings, such as look for, look after, look into, and look about. The sentence describes someone trying to find employment, so you must choose the preposition that expresses the idea of searching or trying to find something. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: He is now looking about a job. The underlined part is looking about a job. Options: for, after, into, No improvement. The intended meaning is that he is trying to find a job at present. Concept / Approach: The correct phrasal verb in English for searching is look for. We say look for a job, look for a house, or look for a solution. Look about can mean look around in a physical space, but not search specifically for something, so looking about a job is incorrect. Look after means take care of, and look into means investigate, both of which change the meaning of the sentence. Therefore, the correct preposition is for, giving the expression looking for a job. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the core verb: looking. The sense is clearly that he is trying to find employment. Step 2: Recall that the standard English expression is look for something when you are searching for it. Step 3: Replace about with for to obtain looking for a job. Step 4: Check option A, for, which yields: He is now looking for a job. This is natural and correct. Step 5: Examine option B, after. Look after means care for, as in look after children or look after the house, which does not match the context of job hunting. Step 6: Examine option C, into. Look into means investigate or examine, as in look into a matter, which is also not appropriate here. Step 7: Reject No improvement because looking about a job is not idiomatic in standard English. Verification / Alternative check: Check the sentence against common examples: She is looking for a new apartment, They are looking for a better opportunity, He is looking for a part time job. All of these use look for plus the thing being sought. There is no standard pattern look about a job in English to mean search for employment. This comparison confirms that for is the only suitable preposition to express the intended meaning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Look after a job would mean take care of a job that you already have, which does not describe someone who is unemployed. Look into a job would suggest investigating a job opportunity, not being in general search of employment. No improvement keeps the incorrect combination look about a job. Common Pitfalls: Because many phrasal verbs are formed by look plus different prepositions, learners sometimes mix them up. The safest strategy is to learn each verb and preposition pair as a fixed unit: look for to search, look after to care for, look into to investigate, and so on. Being familiar with these fixed patterns will help you quickly recognise incorrect combinations such as look about a job and correct them in exam questions. Final Answer: The correct improvement is for, giving: He is now looking for a job.

Question 15

In the sentence "He did not abide with my decision.", the underlined preposition must be checked. Choose the option that best improves the phrase, or select no improvement if the sentence is already correct.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests knowledge of fixed verb plus preposition combinations. The verb abide has a particular preposition that follows it when we want to say someone obeys or accepts a rule, law, or decision. The sentence describes a person who did not follow a decision, so you must choose the preposition that correctly expresses this idea in standard English. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: He did not abide with my decision. The underlined part is abide with my decision. Options: to, by, for, no improvement. The intended meaning is that he did not accept or obey the decision. Concept / Approach: The correct phrase in English is abide by, as in abide by the rules or abide by the decision. Abide with is not standard when we mean obey or follow. Abide by conveys the sense of accepting and acting according to a rule, law, or agreement. Therefore, the correct preposition in this context is by. The other options either form incorrect combinations or do not express the intended meaning. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main verb and its object: abide and my decision. Step 2: Recall the fixed combination abide by, which means obey or accept, as in abide by the decision of the court. Step 3: Replace with with by to form the correct phrase abide by my decision. Step 4: Check option B, by, which yields the sentence He did not abide by my decision. This correctly expresses that he did not follow the decision. Step 5: Evaluate option A, to. Abide to my decision is not idiomatic and does not appear in standard English. Step 6: Evaluate option C, for. Abide for my decision also does not form a recognised phrasal structure and fails to convey obedience. Step 7: Reject no improvement because abide with my decision is not the standard collocation in this meaning. Verification / Alternative check: Consider other sentences where abide is used correctly: Citizens must abide by the law, We should abide by the terms of the contract, Players are expected to abide by the rules of the game. In all these examples, the preposition by follows abide. Replacing by with with, to, or for would sound unnatural or incorrect. Applying the same pattern to the exam sentence confirms that abide by my decision is the correct form. Why Other Options Are Wrong: To and for do not form standard combinations with abide when the meaning is obey or accept. They would confuse the reader and be marked wrong in formal writing. No improvement preserves the incorrect phrase abide with my decision. Common Pitfalls: Many phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs in English must be learned as complete units, because changing the preposition changes or destroys the meaning. It can be tempting to treat with as a general purpose preposition, but verbs such as abide, agree, comply, and concur pair with specific prepositions like by, to, with, or in. Learning these pairs through reading and practice will greatly improve your performance in usage and error spotting questions. Final Answer: The correct improvement is by, giving: He did not abide by my decision.

Question 16

In the sentence "I was living in Chennai for ten years when I was a child.", the underlined verb phrase must reflect a finished situation in the past. Choose the option that best improves this phrase, or select No improvement if the sentence is alre…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question examines your understanding of the correct tense to describe a past state that extended over a definite period and is now completely finished. The sentence refers to the speaker's childhood, a completed phase of life, and specifies a duration of ten years. The task is to select the verb form that best expresses this completed state in simple past time. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: I was living in Chennai for ten years when I was a child. The underlined part is was living in Chennai. Options: had lived, lived, had been living, No improvement. The time frame is clearly in the past and is connected with the speaker's childhood. Concept / Approach: When we talk about a general state or habit that continued for a period in the past and is now finished, English usually uses the simple past tense, not the past continuous or past perfect, unless there is a special reason to emphasise ongoing activity or sequence. The sentence refers to a place where the speaker lived for ten years during childhood, which is a typical use of simple past: I lived in Chennai for ten years when I was a child. The past continuous was living is not needed here and sounds unnatural with the duration phrase for ten years. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the nature of the action. Living in Chennai is a state, not a single event, and it lasted for ten years in the past. Step 2: Recognise that this state is completed and tied to a finished time period when I was a child. Step 3: Recall that for finished states and habits over extended periods in the past, the simple past is preferred: lived. Step 4: Replace was living with lived, giving I lived in Chennai for ten years when I was a child. Step 5: Evaluate option B, lived, which matches this corrected form. Step 6: Evaluate option A, had lived, which would make sense mainly in relation to another past reference point, which is not emphasised here. Step 7: Evaluate option C, had been living, which again introduces a past perfect continuous aspect that is unnecessary and overly complex for a simple background statement. Verification / Alternative check: Compare with similar sentences: I lived in Delhi for five years as a student, She lived in that village for a decade before moving to the city. In all such examples, simple past is used. We only move to past perfect or past perfect continuous when contrasting two past times, such as By the time I left Chennai, I had lived there for ten years. The original sentence has no such second time reference; it simply gives a background fact about childhood, so simple past is the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Had lived and had been living both suggest a comparison with another specific later past event, and without that comparison, they sound unnecessary or overly formal. No improvement would keep was living, which tends to be used for temporary or interrupted actions and is less suitable with a clear and completed ten year period. Common Pitfalls: Many learners overuse continuous tenses because they think they sound more advanced. However, in many past time statements the simple past is not only sufficient but also preferred. A good rule of thumb is to use simple past for stable situations and habits in a finished period unless there is a clear need to emphasise ongoing action at a particular moment or to establish a time contrast that calls for past perfect forms. Final Answer: The correct improvement is lived, giving: I lived in Chennai for ten years when I was a child.

Question 17

In the sentence "I did not feel like going out yesterday, but on account of my son's illness I had to go to the doctor.", the underlined modal phrase must be checked. Choose the option that best improves this phrase, or select no improvement if the …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question looks at the correct modal expression of necessity in the past. The speaker talks about not wanting to go out on a particular day, but still going to the doctor because of a child's illness. The phrase had to go expresses an obligation or necessity that existed yesterday. You must decide whether this expression is correct or whether one of the alternatives would better convey the intended meaning. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: I did not feel like going out yesterday, but on account of my son's illness I had to go to the doctor. The underlined part is had to go to the doctor. Options: have, might have, ought, no improvement. The context is a past situation where the speaker was compelled by circumstances to visit a doctor. Concept / Approach: In English, the modal verb must does not have a direct past form, so we use had to to express past necessity or obligation. The structure had to plus base verb is therefore the standard way to say that something was necessary in the past. In contrast, have by itself suggests present obligation, might have suggests possibility in the past, and ought without to is incomplete. Since the necessity existed yesterday, had to go is the correct expression and needs no improvement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the time reference: yesterday, which clearly places the action in the past. Step 2: Note the contrast between did not feel like going out and the fact that the speaker still went to the doctor because of illness, which implies a strong necessity. Step 3: Recall that past necessity is expressed by had to, as in I had to visit the doctor, He had to work late, They had to cancel the trip. Step 4: Evaluate the original phrase had to go to the doctor, which correctly combines past necessity with the action of going. Step 5: Examine option A, have, which would give I have to go, a present tense structure that conflicts with yesterday. Step 6: Examine option B, might have, which expresses a past possibility or unrealised action, not a completed necessary action. Step 7: Examine option C, ought, which is incomplete without to and in any case expresses duty more than actual necessity in the past. Verification / Alternative check: Compare the sentence with similar statements: I did not want to drive, but I had to because there were no buses, She did not feel well, but she had to attend the meeting. In each case, had to indicates that circumstances forced an action, even though the person did not wish to do it. Replacing had to with have, might have, or ought in these examples would either change the tense or weaken the sense of obligation. The same pattern fits perfectly in the exam sentence with the doctor visit. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Have does not match the past adverb yesterday, so it would create a tense mismatch. Might have would give a sense that going to the doctor was only a possibility or that it perhaps happened, which does not match the clear statement that the speaker went. Ought, without to and without a clear auxiliary structure, is incomplete and cannot stand as a replacement for had to go. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may overthink the presence of had and assume it must be replaced, forgetting that had to is exactly how English expresses past obligation. It is important to distinguish between correcting real errors and changing correct structures unnecessarily. Whenever you see an obligation tied to a completed past event, such as yesterday or last week, check whether had to is already in place before selecting another option. Final Answer: The phrase is already accurate, so the correct choice is no improvement.

Question 18

Sentence improvement (preposition): choose the best word to replace the underlined part in the sentence below. Your services are dispensed for.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence improvement question tests your knowledge of English prepositions and idiomatic usage. The sentence \"Your services are dispensed for\" sounds awkward because the preposition after \"dispensed\" is incorrect. Competitive exams often check whether you know the standard combinations of verbs and prepositions, especially in formal contexts like employment and contracts. Given Data / Assumptions: The original sentence is: Your services are dispensed for. The underlined part involves the preposition after \"dispensed\". Options: from, with, off, no improvement. The intended meaning is that someone's services are no longer required. Concept / Approach: The key is to know the correct idiomatic expression. In standard English, when we want to say that something is no longer needed, we say \"dispense with\" that thing. Therefore, the correct preposition that follows \"dispensed\" in this passive construction should be \"with\". None of the other prepositions forms a correct idiom in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the verb phrase in the sentence: \"are dispensed for\". Step 2: Recall common idioms with \"dispense\": \"dispense justice\", \"dispense medicine\", and the phrasal verb \"dispense with\" meaning \"do without\" or \"no longer need\". Step 3: For services that are no longer needed, the natural expression is \"to dispense with someone's services\". Step 4: In the passive form, this becomes \"Your services are dispensed with\". Step 5: Check each option: \"dispensed from\", \"dispensed with\", \"dispensed off\". Only \"dispensed with\" is idiomatic and grammatically correct. Step 6: Therefore, the best choice is the preposition \"with\". Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by checking usage in formal writing: employers usually say, \"We had to dispense with his services\" or \"His services were dispensed with.\" Phrases like \"dispensed from his services\" or \"dispensed off his services\" are never used in standard English. Substituting each option into the sentence quickly shows that only \"with\" produces a natural, idiomatic sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"from\": \"dispensed from\" is not a standard collocation for ending someone's services; it sounds incorrect. Option \"off\": \"dispensed off\" is not an accepted idiom in English; the phrase has no recognised meaning here. Option \"no improvement\": This would retain \"dispensed for\", which is unidiomatic and wrong for the intended meaning. Common Pitfalls: Learners often think any preposition might work, especially \"for\" or \"from\", because they have a very broad use in English. However, phrasal verbs and fixed expressions must be learned as chunks. Another common mistake is to assume that a formal-looking expression is automatically correct without checking whether it is actually used by native speakers. Final Answer: The corrected sentence should read: Your services are dispensed with. Therefore, the correct option is with.

Question 19

Sentence improvement (verb form): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. I did not go to the office because I was ill.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks your understanding of correct tense usage in a simple cause and effect sentence. The sentence describes a past action that did not happen because of a past state of health. Many learners overcomplicate such sentences by using unnecessary perfect tenses. Examinations often ask you to recognise that the simplest, most natural structure is best. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: I did not go to the office because I was ill. Only the verb phrase \"was ill\" is considered for replacement. Options: felt, had become, had felt, no improvement. The speaker is talking about a past day when he or she missed work due to illness. Concept / Approach: In English, when both the cause and the action happen in the same general time frame in the past, a simple past tense is usually enough. \"Was ill\" is a stative description of a condition at that time. There is no need for a past perfect tense unless we want to show that one past action clearly finished before another past reference point. Here, both events are part of the same time frame, so the original is already correct. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the two clauses: \"I did not go to the office\" and \"because I was ill\". Step 2: Note that both relate to the same past day or period. There is no such time layering that requires a past perfect construction. Step 3: Evaluate \"felt\" and \"had felt\". The natural expression is \"felt ill\" or \"felt unwell\", not just \"felt\" on its own. Step 4: Evaluate \"had become\". \"Had become ill\" is grammatically possible but unnecessarily complex and slightly awkward here. Step 5: Recognise that \"was ill\" is perfectly standard, simple past describing a state, and therefore the best choice is to keep the original form. Verification / Alternative check: Try reading the sentence aloud with each option completed fully: \"because I felt ill\", \"because I had become ill\", \"because I had felt ill\", and \"because I was ill\". The last option sounds the simplest and most idiomatic. Native speakers commonly say, \"I did not go to work because I was ill.\" This confirms that no change is needed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"felt\": On its own, \"felt\" is incomplete; we expect \"felt ill\" or \"felt unwell\". Since only a single word is offered, the replacement does not work naturally in the sentence. Option \"had become\": The past perfect suggests an earlier past time before another past reference. That extra layer of time is not needed here and makes the sentence heavier than necessary. Option \"had felt\": Similar to \"had become\", it introduces an unnecessary past perfect structure and is incomplete without \"ill\" or another complement. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes think that more complex tenses like the past perfect always sound more formal or more correct. In reality, English prefers clear and simple tense usage unless there is a strong reason to show a specific sequence of past events. Overuse of the past perfect is a frequent exam mistake. Final Answer: The best version of the sentence is unchanged: I did not go to the office because I was ill. Hence, the correct option is no improvement.

Question 20

Sentence improvement (preposition and phrasal verb): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. The angry neighbours never passed from each other without making rude remarks.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests correct use of a common verb of movement, \"pass\", with or without prepositions. When people walk by each other in the street, there is a standard way to express that action in English. The sentence, as given, sounds unidiomatic because of the incorrect preposition \"from\" after \"passed\". Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: The angry neighbours never passed from each other without making rude remarks. The idea is that whenever they met or went by one another, they exchanged rude comments. Options: passed on, passed against, passed, no improvement. We must choose a form that naturally collocates with \"each other\" in this context. Concept / Approach: The verb \"pass\" can be used transitively or intransitively. When two people move in opposite directions and go by one another, we generally say \"they passed each other\". We do not add a preposition like \"from\" or \"against\" in this meaning. Therefore, the best correction is to remove the preposition altogether and keep just \"passed\" before \"each other\". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the phrase \"passed from each other\". Step 2: Recall standard expressions: \"pass someone on the road\", \"pass each other\", \"pass by the house\". Step 3: Notice that when referring to two people crossing paths, we normally say \"passed each other\", not \"passed from each other\". Step 4: Test \"passed on each other\" and \"passed against each other\"; both sound incorrect and do not give the intended meaning of physically crossing paths. Step 5: Conclude that the best way to write the sentence is \"The angry neighbours never passed each other without making rude remarks.\" Verification / Alternative check: You can cross-check with typical exam sentences and real usage: \"The two friends passed each other in the corridor\" is a standard pattern. Adding prepositions like \"from\" or \"against\" breaks the natural collocation. If you read the corrected sentence aloud, it sounds smooth and idiomatic. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"passed on\": Usually means \"handed over\" or \"moved ahead\" (for example, \"passed on the message\"), which does not fit the idea of two people crossing paths. Option \"passed against\": This combination is not used in standard English for people meeting on a road; it could incorrectly suggest resistance or opposition, which is not the intended structure here. Option \"no improvement\": Keeping \"passed from each other\" leaves the unidiomatic and incorrect preposition \"from\" in place. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to insert prepositions where English does not need them, especially after verbs of movement. Learners sometimes translate word-for-word from their own language, producing combinations like \"from each other\" that are not used by native speakers. Remember to learn frequent verb plus object patterns, such as \"passed each other\", as fixed units. Final Answer: The improved sentence is: The angry neighbours never passed each other without making rude remarks. Therefore, the correct option is passed.

English Questions