Question 1

Sentence improvement (subject verb agreement): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. The chairman with the other members of the board are touring Europe these days.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on subject verb agreement when two noun phrases are joined by a prepositional phrase such as \"with\". In English grammar, only the true grammatical subject controls the form of the verb. Examinations frequently test whether you can identify the main subject when extra information is inserted between the subject and the verb. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: The chairman with the other members of the board are touring Europe these days. \"The chairman\" is the main subject of the sentence. \"With the other members of the board\" is an accompanying prepositional phrase, not a second subject joined by \"and\". Options: have been on touring, is touring, have toured, no improvement. Concept / Approach: When the structure is \"A with B\" or \"A along with B\", the verb usually agrees with A, the first noun phrase, because B is only additional information. \"Chairman\" is singular, so the verb should be singular as well. Therefore, the plural verb \"are\" is incorrect here. The correct singular present continuous form for a singular subject is \"is touring\". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the core subject: \"The chairman\". Step 2: Recognise that \"with the other members of the board\" is a prepositional phrase that describes who is accompanying him but does not change the grammatical number of the subject. Step 3: A singular subject requires a singular verb: \"is\" rather than \"are\" in the present continuous tense. Step 4: Form the correct verb phrase: \"is touring\". Step 5: Check the sentence with this correction: \"The chairman, with the other members of the board, is touring Europe these days.\" This sounds correct and natural. Verification / Alternative check: A useful test is to remove the extra phrase: \"with the other members of the board\". The skeleton sentence becomes \"The chairman are touring Europe\" which is clearly wrong. If you instead write \"The chairman is touring Europe\", it is correct. Adding the phrase back does not change this requirement. This confirms that the correct verb is singular. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"have been on touring\": This is grammatically incorrect because we do not normally say \"on touring\". The present perfect continuous form would be \"have been touring\", but even then the subject number would be wrong if treated as plural. Option \"have toured\": This changes both the tense and aspect of the sentence, suggesting a completed action in the past rather than an ongoing tour \"these days\". Option \"no improvement\": Keeping \"are touring\" continues the error in subject verb agreement with the singular subject \"chairman\". Common Pitfalls: Many candidates are misled by the phrase immediately next to the verb. Because \"members of the board\" is plural and close to the verb, they choose a plural verb. Always look back to the true subject of the sentence, especially when phrases beginning with \"with\", \"along with\", \"as well as\", or \"together with\" are present. Final Answer: The correct form is: The chairman, with the other members of the board, is touring Europe these days. Thus, the correct option is is touring.

Question 2

Sentence improvement (idiomatic expression): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. Mahatma Gandhi is called as the Father of the Nation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your familiarity with an extremely common English structure: \"be called\" followed directly by a noun phrase. The sentence is about Mahatma Gandhi and his widely known title \"the Father of the Nation\". Examinations often check whether you know that no preposition is used after \"called\" in such patterns. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Mahatma Gandhi is called as the Father of the Nation. The underlined part is \"called as the Father of the Nation\". Options adjust how the title is attached to \"is called\". The intended meaning is that people give Mahatma Gandhi this honorific title. Concept / Approach: In standard English, when we say that someone has a particular name or title, we use the structure \"be called\" plus the name, without any preposition: \"He is called the Father of the Nation.\" The phrase \"called as\" is wrong in this context. The definite article \"the\" is required before \"Father of the Nation\" to mark a unique title. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note the basic pattern: subject + \"is called\" + title. Step 2: Remove \"as\" mentally and see whether the sentence becomes smoother: \"Mahatma Gandhi is called the Father of the Nation\". Step 3: Confirm article usage. Since \"Father of the Nation\" is a unique honorific, it needs \"the\" before it. Step 4: Compare with alternative forms such as \"He is known as the Father of the Nation\", where \"as\" is correctly used because the verb itself is different. Step 5: Select the option that removes \"as\" and keeps the article \"the\" in place. Verification / Alternative check: You can test the pattern with other titles: \"She is called the Nightingale of India\", \"He is called the Iron Man of India\". In none of these sentences do we insert \"as\" after \"called\". The phrase \"called as\" is considered incorrect in standard written English when we are talking about a name or title. This confirms that \"called the Father of the Nation\" is the correct structure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"called Father of the Nation\": This removes both \"as\" and \"the\". It is possible in very informal style, but it sounds incomplete because the uniqueness of the title is not clearly marked. Option \"Father of the Nation\": This removes the verb phrase and leaves only the noun phrase, so the sentence would become \"Mahatma Gandhi is Father of the Nation\", which is grammatically weaker than the standard \"is called the Father of the Nation\". Option \"No improvement\": This keeps \"called as\", which is non-standard and incorrect in this structure. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse \"called\" with \"known as\". The expression \"known as\" correctly takes \"as\" (for example, \"He is known as the Father of the Nation\"), but \"called\" does not. Mixing these patterns leads to the incorrect phrase \"called as\". Remember: \"called\" plus title, but \"known as\" plus title. Final Answer: The correct sentence is: Mahatma Gandhi is called the Father of the Nation. So, the correct option is called the Father of the Nation.

Question 3

Sentence improvement (verb form of lie and lay): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. Poor Tom laid in the shade of a tree before he could walk further.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of the confusing verb pair \"lie\" and \"lay\". Many learners mix up these forms because they sound similar and both relate to positions or movement. Here, the sentence describes Tom resting in the shade, so the correct intransitive verb form is required. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: Poor Tom laid in the shade of a tree before he could walk further. The meaning is that Tom rested or reclined under the tree. Options: lied, lain, lay, no improvement. No object follows the verb, so it must be an intransitive form of \"to lie\" (to recline). Concept / Approach: There are two different verbs to remember: \"lie\" (lie, lay, lain, lying) meaning \"to recline\" and intransitive. \"lay\" (lay, laid, laid, laying) meaning \"to put or place something\" and transitive. In the sentence, Tom is not putting anything down; he himself is in the reclining position. Therefore, the past tense of \"lie\" is required, which is \"lay\". The given \"laid\" is the past tense of \"lay\" (to put something), which is incorrect here. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the intended meaning: Tom was resting or lying under the tree. Step 2: Recognise that the verb is intransitive because there is no direct object after it. Step 3: Select the correct verb \"lie\" (to recline). Its past tense form is \"lay\". Step 4: Replace \"laid\" with \"lay\" to get \"Poor Tom lay in the shade of a tree.\" Step 5: Verify that all other options do not fit the tense and structure correctly. Verification / Alternative check: A useful pattern to memorise is: Today I lie down; yesterday I lay down; I have often lain down. Today I lay the book on the table; yesterday I laid the book on the table; I have often laid the book on the table. Applying this to the sentence shows that \"Tom lay\" (past of lie) is the correct form. \"Tom laid\" would require an object such as \"Tom laid the bag on the ground\", which is not present here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"lied\": This is the past tense of \"lie\" meaning \"to tell an untruth\", not \"to recline\". It changes the meaning completely. Option \"lain\": This is the past participle of \"lie\" and would need an auxiliary verb, such as \"had lain\" or \"has lain\". It cannot stand alone here. Option \"no improvement\": Keeping \"laid\" would keep the incorrect transitive form in place. Common Pitfalls: Confusing \"lay\" and \"lie\" is very common. Learners often assume that \"laid\" is always correct in the past. Remember to ask yourself whether the verb takes an object. If there is no object and the subject is simply resting, the correct verb is \"lie\" with past tense \"lay\". Final Answer: The sentence should read: Poor Tom lay in the shade of a tree before he could walk further. Therefore, the correct option is lay.

Question 4

Sentence improvement (preposition with accustom): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. You must accustom yourself with new ideas.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests the correct preposition and structure used with the verb \"accustom\". Competitive exams frequently check whether you know standard verb preposition combinations like \"accustom to\", \"interfere with\", and \"depend on\". Using the wrong preposition quickly marks a sentence as ungrammatical. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: You must accustom yourself with new ideas. The underlined part involves the phrase \"accustom yourself with\". Options vary in form and preposition: \"accustomed with\", \"accustom to\", \"accustom yourself to\", and \"No improvement\". The intended meaning is that you should become used to new ideas. Concept / Approach: The verb \"accustom\" is usually used in two ways: \"to accustom someone to something\" \"to accustom oneself to something\" In both patterns, the correct preposition is \"to\", not \"with\". In the given sentence, since the reflexive pronoun \"yourself\" is already present, the most natural correction is \"accustom yourself to new ideas\". Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Note that \"yourself\" is already part of the sentence, so we are using the reflexive structure. Step 2: Recall the correct pattern: \"accustom yourself to something\". Step 3: Replace \"with\" by \"to\" and keep the reflexive pronoun: \"accustom yourself to new ideas\". Step 4: Compare with other possible structures and confirm that this one is the most complete and idiomatic. Verification / Alternative check: Test a few related sentences: \"Children quickly accustom themselves to a new school\", \"He soon accustomed himself to the climate\". In all these examples, the verb \"accustom\" is followed by \"to\". If you substitute \"with\" in those sentences, they sound foreign or wrong. This confirms that \"to\" is the only acceptable preposition in this pattern. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"accustomed with\": \"Accustomed\" is the past participle or an adjective. Replacing \"accustom\" with \"accustomed\" would require restructuring the whole sentence, for example, \"You must be accustomed to new ideas.\" Moreover, the correct preposition is still \"to\", not \"with\". Option \"accustom to\": This omits the reflexive pronoun \"yourself\" and sounds incomplete in this specific sentence. The structure \"You must accustom to new ideas\" is not idiomatic. Option \"No improvement\": Keeping \"with\" maintains the incorrect verb preposition combination. Common Pitfalls: Learners often overuse \"with\" because it is very common in English and in many other languages as a preposition of association. However, many verbs require a specific preposition for historical and idiomatic reasons. Memorising these patterns together with the verb is essential for accurate usage in exams and formal writing. Final Answer: The correct version is: You must accustom yourself to new ideas. Hence, the correct option is accustom yourself to.

Question 5

Sentence improvement (existence expression): choose the best substitute for the underlined part in the sentence below. This telephone number is not existing.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your ability to choose a natural English expression to talk about existence or non existence. When a phone number is invalid or not in service, native speakers use a very simple structure. Overcomplicated or literal translations into English often sound wrong, and exams test whether you can avoid such unnatural phrases. Given Data / Assumptions: Original sentence: This telephone number is not existing. The focus is on describing that the number does not exist in the system. Options: does not exist, has not been existing, has had no existence, No improvement. The sentence is about the current status of the number, not a long history. Concept / Approach: The verb \"exist\" is generally used in simple tenses to describe whether something is present or real. For something that is simply not there, the standard sentence is \"It does not exist.\" Progressive forms like \"is existing\" or \"has been existing\" are not used in ordinary English for this meaning. Therefore, the best correction is \"This telephone number does not exist.\" Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key message: the telephone number is invalid or not present in the database. Step 2: Replace the awkward \"is not existing\" with a more natural expression. Step 3: Use the present simple negative: \"does not exist\" for a general statement about existence. Step 4: Form the corrected sentence: \"This telephone number does not exist.\" Step 5: Check that this structure matches standard English usage in service messages and everyday speech. Verification / Alternative check: Think of common phrases: \"Unicorns do not exist\", \"That record does not exist any more\", \"Such a rule does not exist\". You almost never hear \"is not existing\" for this idea. Automated messages from phone networks typically say \"The number you have dialled does not exist\". This confirms that \"does not exist\" is the correct expression. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"has not been existing\": This is an unnatural progressive perfect form. English does not normally say something \"has been existing\" in this context. Option \"has had no existence\": This is grammatically possible but too heavy and unnatural for a simple statement about a phone number. Option \"No improvement\": This would keep \"is not existing\", which is incorrect in standard English. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to overuse the continuous or progressive aspect with verbs that already describe states, such as \"exist\", \"know\", or \"believe\". These verbs usually prefer simple forms rather than continuous ones when talking about general truths or permanent states. Final Answer: The improved sentence is: This telephone number does not exist. Therefore, the correct option is does not exist.

Question 6

Reordering of sentences (narrative about an old man's dreams): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: He no longer dreamed of storms, nor of women, nor of great occurrences, nor of great fish, nor fights, nor conte…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is based on a narrative passage adapted from a famous novel about an old fisherman. It tests your ability to arrange jumbled sentences into a coherent paragraph. You must use logical flow, pronoun reference, and thematic continuity to decide the correct order of the middle sentences labelled P, Q, R and S, which sit between S1 and S6. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: He no longer dreamed of storms, nor of women, nor of great occurrences, nor of great fish, nor fights, nor contests of strength, nor of his wife. S6: He urinated outside the shack and then went up the road to wake the boy. P: He never dreamed about the boy. Q: He only dreamed of places and of the lions on the beach now. R: He simply woke, looked out through the open door at the moon and unrolled his trousers and put them on. S: They played like young cats in the dusk and he loved them as he loved the boy. Concept / Approach: To find the correct sequence, use: Thematic links: from dreams in S1 to specific dream content in the middle, then to waking up in R leading into S6. Pronoun references: \"They\" in S must refer back to a plural noun introduced earlier, which is the lions in Q. Contrast and clarification: P clarifies that although he loves the boy, he never dreams about him. The correct sequence must begin by specifying what he dreams about now, then describe those dreams, then clarify the one thing he does not dream about, and finally show him waking up. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: S1 talks about what he no longer dreams of. The natural next step is to say what he does dream of now, so Q follows: \"He only dreamed of places and of the lions on the beach now.\" Step 2: The plural pronoun \"They\" in S must refer to the lions mentioned in Q. So S must come immediately after Q: \"They played like young cats in the dusk and he loved them as he loved the boy.\" Step 3: After mentioning that he loves the lions as he loves the boy, it is logical to clarify that he never dreams about the boy. That is P: \"He never dreamed about the boy.\" Step 4: Once the dream sequence is complete, the narrative moves to his waking actions. R fits just before S6: \"He simply woke, looked out through the open door at the moon and unrolled his trousers and put them on.\" Step 5: Combining everything, we get S1 → Q → S → P → R → S6, that is Q S P R. Verification / Alternative check: Check any alternative order where R comes earlier. If R appears before Q, we would have him waking up and then the text would return to his dreams, which breaks the temporal flow. If S appears before Q, the pronoun \"They\" would not have a clear antecedent. Therefore, any sequence other than Q S P R creates logical or grammatical problems, confirming that Q S P R is the only coherent order. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"R Q P S\": Waking up in R cannot come before the detailed description of his dreams, and S then lacks a clear antecedent for \"They\". Option \"S R Q P\": Starting with S leaves \"They\" undefined, and R followed by Q breaks the natural dream to waking sequence. Option \"P R S Q\": P cannot come immediately after S1 because there is no prior reference to the boy in the dream list, and R in the middle interrupts the dream description before Q and S. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates ignore pronoun reference and focus only on abstract ideas. In jumbled sentence questions, always check what nouns the pronouns like \"they\" or \"he\" can refer to. Also, pay attention to the timeline; descriptive dream content must come before the waking action that leads into S6. Final Answer: The proper order of the middle sentences is Q S P R, which forms a smooth and logically connected paragraph between S1 and S6.

Question 7

Reordering of sentences (public health and education): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: We do not know, after sixty years of education, how to protect ourselves against epidemics like cholera and plague. S6: …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This jumbled passage deals with the failure of an education system to equip people with practical health knowledge. You are asked to order the middle sentences P, Q, R and S between S1 and S6 so that the resulting paragraph is logically and thematically coherent. The key is to trace the author's argument from general criticism to specific examples and then to a suggested reason. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: We do not know, after sixty years of education, how to protect ourselves against epidemics like cholera and plague. S6: This is the disastrous result of the system under which we are educated. P: If our doctors could have started learning medicine at an earlier age, they would not make such a poor show as they do. Q: I have seen hundreds of homes. I cannot say that I have found any evidence in them of knowledge of hygiene. R: I consider it a very serious blot on the state of our education that our doctors have not found it possible to eradicate these diseases. S: I have the greatest doubt whether our graduates know what one should do in case one is bitten by a snake. Concept / Approach: The structure of the argument is: General criticism of education regarding epidemics. Specific criticism related to doctors and their failure. Examples showing the ignorance of ordinary educated people at home. A specific doubt about graduates in an emergency situation. Conclusion blaming the education system. We must place sentences so that each idea flows into the next naturally, with R following S1 as it directly elaborates the \"blot\" on education. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From S1, the author moves naturally to R, which explicitly mentions \"a very serious blot on the state of our education\" and directly continues the criticism begun in S1. Step 2: After blaming doctors in R, the author widens the criticism to ordinary homes. Q does this by saying there is no evidence of knowledge of hygiene in hundreds of homes visited. Step 3: S continues this line of thought with a specific example: even graduates may not know what to do if someone is bitten by a snake. This deepens the criticism of practical ignorance. Step 4: Finally, P offers a reason and a possible solution by suggesting that if doctors had started learning medicine earlier, they would not perform so poorly. This line brings the focus back to the structure of education before leading into S6, which blames the system. Step 5: Putting this together, we get S1 → R → Q → S → P → S6, that is R Q S P. Verification / Alternative check: Try any option where P comes directly after S1. The argument then jumps prematurely to an early start in medical education without first establishing the seriousness of the failure and the general ignorance among people. Similarly, if S is placed before Q, the author mentions a snake bite emergency before establishing a broader lack of hygiene knowledge, which weakens the logical build up. This confirms that R Q S P is the strongest sequence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"P R Q S\": P introduces a hypothetical about doctors starting earlier but does not logically follow S1 as strongly as R does, and the flow becomes disjointed. Option \"Q R P S\": Moving from S1 directly to household observations (Q) skips the clear connection provided by R that links epidemics and doctor performance to the education system. Option \"P Q S R\": This order scatters the argument; R, which contains a strong evaluative statement about education, is oddly pushed to the end of the middle block instead of building the argument. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes look only at obvious sequence markers like \"if\" and \"so\" and ignore thematic progression. In paragraph ordering questions, always consider which sentence directly elaborates a key phrase in the previous one. Here, \"a serious blot on the state of our education\" in R is a clear echo of S1 and naturally follows it. Final Answer: The correct sequence of the middle sentences is R Q S P, giving a clear and coherent paragraph between S1 and S6.

Question 8

Reordering of sentences (weakness and strength): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: The weak have no place here, in this life or in any other life. Weakness leads to slavery. S6: This is the great fact: strengt…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This passage is a philosophical reflection on weakness and strength. The task is to arrange jumbled sentences P, Q, R and S into a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. To do this, you must follow the development of the argument from a general statement about weakness to specific explanations involving microbes and mental strength. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: The weak have no place here, in this life or in any other life. Weakness leads to slavery. S6: This is the great fact: strength is life, weakness is death. Strength is felicity, life eternal, immortal; weakness is constant strain and misery; weakness is death. P: They dare not approach us, they have no power to get a hold on us, until the mind is weakened. Q: Weakness leads to all kinds of misery, physical and mental. Weakness is death. R: But they cannot harm us unless we become weak, until the body is ready and predisposed to receive them. S: There are hundreds of thousands of microbes surrounding us. Concept / Approach: We need to build the argument in two stages: First, extend the general statement about weakness into a fuller explanation of its consequences. Then introduce a concrete example with microbes, showing that they can only harm a weakened person, linking back to the theme that weakness leads to suffering and death. The sentence describing \"hundreds of thousands of microbes\" must follow a reference that prepares for an example, and the pronoun \"they\" in P and R must clearly refer to the microbes introduced in S. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: S1 says weakness leads to slavery. Q naturally follows by expanding this idea: \"Weakness leads to all kinds of misery, physical and mental. Weakness is death.\" It deepens the statement from S1. Step 2: Once the general consequences are described, the passage moves to a concrete example. R talks about a unnamed \"they\" that cannot harm us unless we are weak. S identifies \"they\" as microbes surrounding us, so S must come after R. Step 3: P then continues the same example, stressing that these microbes \"dare not approach us\" until the mind is weakened. It still refers to the same \"they\" introduced and clarified earlier. Step 4: Putting this together, we get the order Q → R → S → P between S1 and S6. Step 5: This sequence maintains thematic unity: from overall consequences of weakness, to microbe example, to a concluding summary in S6 about strength and weakness. Verification / Alternative check: If you begin with S immediately after S1, the sudden mention of microbes feels abrupt without the bridge provided by Q. Also, any sequence where S precedes R or P but Q appears later breaks the logical flow from abstract consequences to specific illustration. The order Q R S P ensures that pronouns like \"they\" always have a clear noun (microbes) available beforehand or very soon after, keeping the reasoning easy to follow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"P Q R S\": Starting with P leaves \"they\" without an antecedent, and S, which introduces microbes, comes too late to clarify the earlier pronoun references. Option \"P R Q S\": Both P and R talk about \"they\" before S introduces the microbes, causing confusion. Q, which should come early to develop the theme of weakness, is pushed too far down the paragraph. Option \"Q S R P\": Here S introduces microbes too early, before R explains their inability to harm us unless we are weak. The flow of example and explanation becomes weaker and less persuasive. Common Pitfalls: A common trap in such questions is to focus only on the order of sentences mentioning the same topic (like microbes) and ignore the abstract sentences that prepare the ground. Always ensure that the passage first states and elaborates a general claim, then supports it with a concrete example, and finally returns to a summarising remark as S6 does here. Final Answer: The correct sequence of the middle sentences is Q R S P, giving a clear and logically developed paragraph about weakness and strength.

Question 9

Reordering of sentences (Nobel Prize and externalities): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: The Nobel Prize for Economics in 2018 was awarded to Paul Romer and William Nordhaus for their work in two separate ar…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This paragraph is about the work of Paul Romer and William Nordhaus and the economic concept of externalities. The jumbled sentences P, Q, R and S must be arranged to form a logically connected explanation between S1 and S6. To solve this, you need to follow how the passage introduces a common thread in their work and defines key terms before referring back to their contributions. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: The Nobel Prize for Economics in 2018 was awarded to Paul Romer and William Nordhaus for their work in two separate areas: economic growth and environmental economics respectively. S6: Among recent winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, it is hard to think of one issue which is more topical and relevant to India. P: But there is a common thread in their work. Q: In economic jargon it is termed as externality. R: Productive activity often has spillovers, meaning that it can impact an unrelated party. S: Romer and Nordhaus both studied the impact of externalities and came up with profound insights and economic models. Concept / Approach: The logical development should: Introduce the idea that, despite different fields, there is a common thread (P). Explain the general concept behind that common thread using an example of spillovers (R). Name this concept using the technical term \"externality\" (Q). Finally, connect the concept back to Romer and Nordhaus and their work (S), before S6 comments on the relevance. This structure moves from the prize announcement to concept explanation and then back to the laureates, making the paragraph coherent. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: After S1, which mentions that the laureates worked in different areas, it is natural to state that there is nevertheless a common thread in their work. P does exactly this. Step 2: Once the idea of a common thread is raised, the passage explains what that thread involves. R introduces the notion of spillovers: productive activity impacting unrelated parties. Step 3: After describing spillovers in simple language, Q names the concept in economic jargon: \"externality\". This is the precise term for the phenomenon described in R. Step 4: Finally, S connects the technical concept back to the laureates: both Romer and Nordhaus studied externalities and created important models. Step 5: Putting this sequence together gives S1 → P → R → Q → S → S6, which is P R Q S. Verification / Alternative check: Try starting with R directly after S1. The reader would suddenly see an example of spillovers without understanding why it is being mentioned. Similarly, if Q comes before R, the technical term \"externality\" appears without an illustrative explanation, which is poor expository style. The only order that introduces, explains, labels, and then applies the concept is P R Q S. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"P Q R S\": Here the technical term \"externality\" appears before any explanation of spillovers, forcing the reader to deal with jargon without context. Option \"Q S P R\": This begins with jargon, then shifts to Romer and Nordhaus, and only later introduces the example of spillovers, breaking the logical flow. Option \"Q S R P\": The common thread is not introduced first, the technical term comes too early, and the explanation of spillovers appears later, confusing the reader. Common Pitfalls: In such conceptual paragraphs, candidates sometimes place the definition (Q) before the illustrative explanation (R), but good writing usually moves from concrete example to abstract label. Also, the sentence that explicitly introduces a \"common thread\" should almost always come immediately after noting differences, as it does in this passage. Final Answer: The correct arrangement of the middle sentences is P R Q S, forming a smooth explanation of externalities and the work of Romer and Nordhaus.

Question 10

Reordering of sentences (Indian museums): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: Museums in India tend to be dreary experiences. S6: Because it is better to attract crowds than dust.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This jumbled passage comments on how Indian museums are often dull and need to become more engaging. Your task is to order P, Q, R and S between S1 and S6 so that the argument flows from the present dreary state to a call for change and an example of a successful modern approach. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: Museums in India tend to be dreary experiences. S6: Because it is better to attract crowds than dust. P: Even the Louvre that attracted an eye popping 8.1 million visitors last year compared to India's 10.18 million foreign tourists, has hooked up with famous musicians for promotion, where they take a selfie with the Mona Lisa. Q: Our museums need to get cool too. R: A change of approach is clearly called for. S: Troops of restless schoolchildren are often the most frequent visitors, endlessly being told to lower their voices and not touch the art. Concept / Approach: The paragraph should: Describe the current dull experience (S1 and S). Conclude that a change is needed (R). Provide a positive example from abroad (P). Call for Indian museums to adopt a similar modern, engaging approach (Q), leading naturally into S6. This structure moves from problem description to solution and example, which is typical in editorial style writing. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: S1 says museums are dreary. S continues this idea by painting a picture of schoolchildren scolded and restricted, which reinforces the dull atmosphere. So S should follow S1. Step 2: After describing the problem, R logically follows: \"A change of approach is clearly called for.\" This sentence directly arises from the negative picture in S. Step 3: Once a change is demanded, the paragraph offers an example of how another world famous museum, the Louvre, has adapted. P shows this concrete example of an innovative promotional strategy. Step 4: After the example, Q draws the conclusion for India: \"Our museums need to get cool too.\" This sets up S6, which justifies that approach by saying it is better to attract people than dust. Step 5: Therefore, the correct order of the middle sentences is S → R → P → Q, that is S R P Q. Verification / Alternative check: If you start with P immediately after S1, the passage jumps to the Louvre before fully describing the problem in India. If Q comes earlier, the call to \"get cool\" appears before either the negative picture or the positive example, weakening the argument. Only S R P Q maintains a persuasive progression: gloomy reality, call for change, inspiring example, and concluding recommendation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"P Q R S\": The example of the Louvre appears before the dreary experience of Indian museums is fully described, making the paragraph feel disordered. Option \"P R S Q\": Again the example comes too early, and R and S are not in a natural cause effect order. Option \"Q S R P\": The suggestion that museums \"need to get cool\" appears before the reader has seen the negative description in S and before the call for change in R. Common Pitfalls: Many learners focus only on numerical data like visitor counts and assume that sentence must come first. In jumbled passages, always ask: what is the writer trying to prove or criticise, and how do they build that case step by step? Here the emotional picture of bored children and dull museums must come before the example and the policy recommendation. Final Answer: The coherent order of the middle sentences is S R P Q, producing a smooth and persuasive paragraph about the need to modernise Indian museums.

Question 11

Reordering of sentences (climate policy and transport): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: The climate question presents a leapfrog era for the development paradigm of India. S6: This presents a good template f…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This paragraph is about climate action in India and international efforts to decarbonise transport. The jumbled sentences P, Q, R and S must be ordered so that the text moves smoothly from India's renewable energy ambitions to new transport initiatives and their goals, before concluding with S6 about electric mobility. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: The climate question presents a leapfrog era for the development paradigm of India. S6: This presents a good template for India, building on its existing plans to introduce electric mobility through buses first, and cars by 2030. P: It is aimed at achieving a shift to sustainable fuels, getting cities to commit to eco friendly mobility and delivering more walkable communities, all of which will improve the quality of urban life. Q: At the Bonn conference, a new Transport Decarbonisation Alliance has been declared. R: This has to be resolutely pursued, breaking down the barriers to wider adoption of rooftop solar energy at every level and implementing net metering systems for all categories of consumers. S: Already, the country has chalked out an ambitious policy on renewable energy, hoping to generate 175 gigawatts of power from green sources by 2022. Concept / Approach: The logical progression is: From the general climate opportunity for India (S1). To India's existing renewable energy policy (S). To the need to pursue this policy seriously (R). To the international transport alliance (Q). To the objectives of that alliance (P), which then links smoothly into S6 about electric mobility. Pronoun references also guide the order: \"This\" in R refers to the policy in S, and \"It\" in P refers back to the alliance in Q. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: S1 introduces the idea of a leapfrog era for India. The next logical sentence is S, which details India's ambitious renewable energy policy and target of 175 gigawatts from green sources. Step 2: R follows naturally because \"This\" refers to the policy described in S. R emphasises that this policy must be resolutely pursued by adopting rooftop solar and net metering. Step 3: After discussing domestic policy, the passage widens its scope to an international initiative. Q introduces the Transport Decarbonisation Alliance declared at the Bonn conference. Step 4: P explains what the alliance \"is aimed at\": shifting to sustainable fuels, promoting eco friendly mobility, and making cities more walkable. Step 5: The aims stated in P directly connect to S6, which describes a template for India in terms of electric mobility. This gives the overall sequence S1 → S → R → Q → P → S6, that is S R Q P. Verification / Alternative check: Any order where Q appears before S and R would jump too quickly from the general statement in S1 to an international initiative without first establishing India's own policy base. Similarly, if P comes before Q, the pronoun \"It\" in P lacks a clear antecedent, since the alliance has not yet been named. Therefore, S R Q P is the only order that respects both pronoun reference and argument structure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"S P R Q\": Here P would describe the aims of something that has not yet been introduced, making \"It\" unclear. Option \"P R S Q\": This would place the alliance's aims before explaining India's renewable energy policy, breaking the logical sequence from national efforts to global initiatives. Option \"Q R S P\": In this order, R's \"This\" cannot clearly refer back to S, and S appears too late, disrupting the narrative about India's policy background. Common Pitfalls: In multi theme paragraphs, candidates sometimes try to keep all sentences about one topic together. However, good writing may interleave national and international contexts as long as pronouns and logical references are clear. Always track what each \"This\" and \"It\" refers to when deciding the order. Final Answer: The correct sequence of the middle sentences is S R Q P, producing a coherent discussion of India's climate policy and the Transport Decarbonisation Alliance.

Question 12

Reordering of sentences (data protection and Big Data): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: The dawn of the information age opened up great opportunities for the beneficial use of data. S6: To some, in this era …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This jumbled passage discusses the benefits and dangers of the information age and the need for data protection laws. You must arrange P, Q, R and S so that the passage moves from opportunities and risks to the policy response, while leading smoothly into S6 about public fears in the Big Data era. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: The dawn of the information age opened up great opportunities for the beneficial use of data. S6: To some, in this era of Big Data analytics and automated, algorithm based processing of zettabytes of information, the fear that their personal data may be unprotected may conjure up visions of a dystopian world in which individual liberties are compromised. P: But it is the conflict between the massive scope for progress provided by the digital era and the fear of loss of individual autonomy that is foregrounded in any debates about data protection laws. Q: It also enhanced the perils of unregulated and arbitrary use of personal data. R: It is against this backdrop that the White Paper made public to elicit views from the public on the shape and substance of a comprehensive data protection law assumes significance. S: Unauthorised leaks, hacking and other cyber crimes have rendered databases vulnerable. Concept / Approach: The paragraph should: Move from the positive opportunities in S1 to the negative side effects such as leaks and hacking (S). Then generalise these into a broader statement about the perils of unregulated data use (Q). Introduce the policy response in the form of a White Paper (R). Finally, summarise the central conflict between progress and autonomy (P), which links well into S6 describing people's fears. We must respect the logical build up from concrete problems to abstract conflict and policy debate. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: After S1, which mentions beneficial opportunities, the passage should acknowledge the negative side. S does this by listing unauthorised leaks, hacking, and cyber crimes that make databases vulnerable. Step 2: Q generalises from these examples, stating that the information age has also enhanced the perils of unregulated and arbitrary use of personal data. Step 3: R then introduces the policy response: in this problematic backdrop of risk and vulnerability, a White Paper on data protection law has been released to gather public views. Step 4: P summarises the heart of the debate: a conflict between vast progress enabled by the digital era and fears about loss of individual autonomy. This sets the stage for S6, which speaks of dystopian visions caused by that fear. Step 5: The resulting order is S1 → S → Q → R → P → S6, that is S Q R P. Verification / Alternative check: If P appears earlier, the passage would speak of conflicts in data protection debates before even describing any concrete risks, making the argument less persuasive. If R is placed before S and Q, the policy move (White Paper) appears before the reader knows why it is needed. Therefore, the sequence S Q R P is the only one that provides a natural movement from examples of danger to broader conflict and public fear. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"Q P R S\": This places abstract discussion of perils and conflict before mentioning concrete threats like hacking and leaks, weakening the argument. Option \"S R P Q\": Here the White Paper appears immediately after describing vulnerabilities, without first generalising the perils of unregulated data use, and the final Q does not link smoothly into S6. Option \"Q S P R\": The sequence of dangers, conflict, and policy becomes disordered: the conflict is introduced before the direct examples and the policy step is pushed to the end, making the paragraph less coherent. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error in ordering questions is to treat every sentence beginning with \"It\" or \"This\" as interchangeable. Always check carefully what each pronoun refers to and whether that reference has already been established. In this passage, \"It is against this backdrop\" in R clearly requires earlier sentences describing the risks and perils introduced in S and Q. Final Answer: The coherent order of the middle sentences is S Q R P, forming a clear argument about data, risk, and the need for protection laws.

Question 13

Reordering of sentences (tariffs and trade war): arrange P, Q, R and S to form a coherent paragraph between S1 and S6. S1: In a globalised world, no country can hope to impose tariffs without affecting its own economic interests. S6: The ongoing tra…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This passage discusses how tariffs in a trade war affect both consumers and the wider economy. The middle sentences P, Q, R and S must be ordered so that the argument flows logically from the general statement in S1 to the broader warning in S6. The key is to move from immediate consumer impact to producer and country level effects, and finally to investment behaviour. Given Data / Assumptions: S1: In a globalised world, no country can hope to impose tariffs without affecting its own economic interests. S6: The ongoing trade war also threatens the rules based global trade order which has managed to amicably handle trade disputes between countries for decades. P: So both the United States and China, which have blamed each other for the ongoing trade war, are doing no good to their own economic fortunes by engaging in this tit for tat tariff battle. Q: Apart from disadvantaging its consumers, who will have to pay higher prices for certain goods, tariffs will also disrupt the supply chain of producers who rely on foreign imports. R: China, which is fighting an economic slowdown, will be equally affected. S: The minutes of the United States Federal Reserve June policy meeting show that economic uncertainty due to the trade war is already affecting private investment in the United States, with many investors deciding to scale back or delay their investment plans. Concept / Approach: The logical pattern should be: From S1, which gives a general warning about tariffs in a globalised world. To Q, which explains immediate impacts on consumers and producers. To P, which draws a conclusion that both the United States and China harm their own fortunes by this behaviour. To S, which provides evidence of how uncertainty is affecting private investment in the United States. To R, which adds that China, facing an economic slowdown, is also harmed. S6 then summarises the broader threat to the global trade system. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: After S1, Q is the best follow up because it directly explains how tariffs disadvantage consumers and disrupt supply chains, making S1 concrete. Step 2: Once the immediate consumer and producer impacts are stated, P generalises the effect to both major participants in the trade war, stating that the United States and China harm their own fortunes with tit for tat tariffs. Step 3: S then offers a specific illustration showing how uncertainty from the trade war has already influenced private investment decisions in the United States, thereby supporting P's claim about harm to economic fortunes. Step 4: R adds balance by pointing out that China, already fighting an economic slowdown, will be equally affected, broadening the example to the other main player. Step 5: The sequence S1 → Q → P → S → R → S6 therefore provides a smooth development, which corresponds to Q P S R. Verification / Alternative check: If we start with P immediately after S1, the paragraph would jump to a conclusion about the United States and China without first explaining how tariffs affect consumers or supply chains. If S appears before P, the specific example of changed investment behaviour would come before the general conclusion about both countries, making the argument less clear. The order Q P S R best respects the movement from explanation to conclusion to evidence and then to balancing detail. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"S Q P R\": This brings in the Federal Reserve example too early, before readers understand the basic consumer and producer impacts described in Q. Option \"Q R P S\": Here the sentence about China's slowdown appears before the main conclusion about harm to both economies in P, weakening the structure. Option \"P S R Q\": This order places the conclusion in P first, followed by mixed examples and only then Q's explanation of consumer and supply chain harm, disrupting logical flow. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is to treat every sentence mentioning a specific country as interchangeable. Instead, focus on how the author builds reasoning: definition or explanation, then a general conclusion, then evidence, and finally balancing detail. Keeping this structure in mind helps avoid rearranging sentences purely on the basis of which proper nouns they contain. Final Answer: The correct sequence of the middle sentences is Q P S R, producing a clear and logically argued paragraph about tariffs and the trade war.

Question 14

Vocabulary (blank filling): choose the most appropriate word to complete the sentence. In this university, there is no __________ for awarding scholarships on the basis of merit in examinations alone.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of precise vocabulary in a formal academic context. The sentence talks about awarding scholarships and mentions that something is lacking \"for awarding scholarships on the basis of merit in examinations alone\". You must choose the word that correctly expresses the idea that such a practice has not been followed before. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: In this university, there is no __________ for awarding scholarships on the basis of merit in examinations alone. Options: precedent, opportunity, chance, possibility. The context is university policy and previous practice. We assume the university has not followed a certain practice earlier. Concept / Approach: The key word here is \"precedent\". In formal English, \"precedent\" means an earlier event, action, or decision that can be used as an example or justification in the future. When an institution says there is \"no precedent\" for something, it means that this has never been done before and there is no earlier example to follow. This matches the policy context of scholarships perfectly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the phrase \"in this university\" and \"awarding scholarships\". The sentence is about institutional practice, not about random probability. Step 2: Test \"precedent\": \"There is no precedent for awarding scholarships on the basis of merit in examinations alone\" means no such system has ever been used before. This fits naturally. Step 3: Test \"opportunity\": This would mean there has been no suitable time or chance to do it, which does not fit the idea of a past practice or policy decision. Step 4: Test \"chance\" and \"possibility\": These refer to likelihood or probability, not to established custom or tradition in an institution. Step 5: Conclude that \"precedent\" is the only word that expresses the intended idea of previous practice. Verification / Alternative check: Think of other sentences: \"There is no precedent for this kind of appointment\", \"The court decision set an important precedent\". In all these cases, the word refers to an earlier action that guides current decisions. Applying this understanding to the university sentence confirms that \"precedent\" is correct, because it refers to an earlier scholarship policy that does not exist. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"opportunity\": This usually refers to a favourable time, situation, or chance to do something, not to a previous example or policy. Option \"chance\": This indicates probability or luck and is not used to describe institutional practice or tradition. Option \"possibility\": This means something that can be done or might happen, but the sentence is about whether such a system has ever existed before, not whether it could theoretically exist. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse \"precedent\" with \"precedence\". \"Precedent\" is a noun meaning a previous example, while \"precedence\" means priority or importance in order. In policy and legal contexts, \"precedent\" is the correct term for an earlier decision that guides later actions. Final Answer: The completed sentence is: In this university, there is no precedent for awarding scholarships on the basis of merit in examinations alone. Thus, the correct option is precedent.

Question 15

Vocabulary (phrasal verb with pay): choose the most appropriate word to complete the sentence. Can you pay ________ all these articles?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of the correct preposition used with the verb \"pay\" when talking about buying goods. The sentence is about paying the cost of articles you are purchasing, and only one of the given prepositions fits the standard English expression. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: Can you pay ________ all these articles? Options: out, of, for, off. The context is a request to settle the cost of several items. We assume the speaker is asking whether someone can bear the expense. Concept / Approach: When we talk about giving money in exchange for goods or services, we use the phrasal pattern \"pay for\" something. This is the standard collocation in English: \"pay for the books\", \"pay for the ticket\", \"pay for the meal\". Other prepositions create completely different meanings or ungrammatical phrases. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Replace each option in the blank and read the full sentence. Step 2: \"Can you pay out all these articles?\" sounds wrong because \"pay out\" normally means to distribute money, often for compensation or prizes, and would usually be followed by an amount, not \"articles\". Step 3: \"Can you pay of all these articles?\" is grammatically incorrect because \"pay of\" is not a valid combination. Step 4: \"Can you pay off all these articles?\" might be used in some contexts to mean \"pay off\" a debt, but the object would then be \"debt\" or \"loan\", not the articles themselves in a shop. Step 5: \"Can you pay for all these articles?\" is natural and idiomatic, meaning \"Can you bear the cost of all these items?\" Therefore, \"for\" is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Check other common examples: \"Who will pay for the damage?\", \"She paid for the tickets\", \"I will pay for dinner tonight.\" In every case, the preposition is \"for\" followed by the thing bought or compensated. This consistent pattern confirms that \"for\" is the only suitable preposition here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"out\": \"Pay out\" is used when money is given, often by a company or system, for example, \"The insurance company paid out a large sum.\" It is not used with a direct object like \"articles\" in this context. Option \"of\": There is no standard phrasal verb \"pay of\". The phrase is simply incorrect grammatically. Option \"off\": \"Pay off\" means to clear a debt or bribe someone. You pay off a loan, a mortgage, or sometimes a person, not the articles directly in a shop. Common Pitfalls: Students often overextend the use of \"pay off\" because they hear it in contexts like \"pay off the loan\" or \"pay off the car\". Remember that when the focus is on the cost of items you are acquiring, the correct pattern is always \"pay for\" plus the items. Final Answer: The sentence should read: Can you pay for all these articles? Hence, the correct option is for.

Question 16

Vocabulary (adjective for trustworthiness): choose the most appropriate word to complete the sentence. He is quite __________; you can never count on him in matters of secrecy.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks whether you can choose the precise adjective that matches the idea of someone you cannot trust in confidential matters. The clue is in the phrase \"you can never count on him in matters of secrecy\", which points directly to reliability and trustworthiness, not to justice, comfort, or efficiency. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: He is quite __________; you can never count on him in matters of secrecy. Options: unjust, unbearable, inefficient, unreliable. The sentence emphasises the inability to count on him, particularly when secrecy is required. We assume his problem is that he does not keep secrets or cannot be trusted. Concept / Approach: The main clue is \"never count on him\". The verb \"count on\" means \"rely on\" or \"trust\" someone. Therefore, the missing adjective must describe a person who cannot be relied upon. Among the options, only \"unreliable\" directly expresses that idea. The other options refer to fairness, tolerance, or work performance, which do not fit the given context. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key phrase: \"you can never count on him\". This is about reliability. Step 2: Test \"unjust\": This means \"not fair\" or \"not just\" in terms of moral or legal correctness. It does not relate to keeping secrets or being dependable. Step 3: Test \"unbearable\": This means \"very difficult to tolerate\" and usually applies to situations or people who are annoying, but not directly to whether you can rely on someone in secrecy. Step 4: Test \"inefficient\": This applies to someone who does not work effectively or wastes time or resources. It does not necessarily mean they cannot keep secrets. Step 5: Test \"unreliable\": This means that you cannot rely on the person; they do not consistently do what they are expected to do. This matches the description of someone you cannot count on. Verification / Alternative check: You can rephrase the sentence with synonyms: \"He is quite unreliable; you can never depend on him in matters of secrecy.\" This sounds natural and coherent. If you try the other words, the sentence becomes illogical: \"He is quite unjust\" or \"inefficient\" in context of secrecy does not make sense. This confirms that \"unreliable\" is the only correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"unjust\": Refers to unfairness in behaviour or decision making, not to dependability in keeping secrets. Option \"unbearable\": Refers to someone or something that is too difficult to tolerate, often due to behaviour or conditions, but not to trust in confidential matters. Option \"inefficient\": Relates to poor performance or low productivity, not trustworthiness. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes choose adjectives based on general negativity rather than precise meaning. In exams, look for the part of the sentence that defines the specific type of problem. Here, \"never count on him\" clearly points to reliability, not just any negative quality. Final Answer: The complete sentence is: He is quite unreliable; you can never count on him in matters of secrecy. So, the correct option is unreliable.

Question 17

Vocabulary (formal verb for giving an oath): choose the most appropriate word to complete the sentence. The Governor will _______ the oath of office to the thirty five new ministers at 9.30 p.m. tomorrow.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks whether you know the proper formal verb used with \"oath of office\" in official and legal contexts. When a Governor or judge oversees the taking of an oath, English uses a specific verb to describe that action. Recognising this fixed expression is important for exams and formal writing. Given Data / Assumptions: Sentence: The Governor will _______ the oath of office to the thirty five new ministers at 9.30 p.m. tomorrow. Options: confer, present, execute, administer. We assume this is a constitutional or ceremonial event where ministers formally take their oath. Concept / Approach: In legal and administrative English, the standard phrase is \"administer an oath\". It means to oversee the taking of an oath and to formally cause someone to swear it. None of the other verbs collocates correctly with \"oath of office\" in this way. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall common fixed expressions: \"administer an oath\", \"administer the test\", \"administer justice\". Step 2: Test \"confer\": We confer a degree, title, or honour on someone, not an oath. The phrase \"confer the oath\" is not standard. Step 3: Test \"present\": We present an award, a report, or a person, but we do not \"present an oath\" as a formal legal phrase. Step 4: Test \"execute\": In legal language, \"execute\" a document means to sign it formally, but \"execute an oath\" is not a standard collocation for this ceremony. Step 5: Test \"administer\": \"The Governor will administer the oath of office\" is exactly how such events are usually described in news reports and official records. Verification / Alternative check: Look at similar contexts: \"The judge administered the oath to the witness\", \"The clerk administered the oath of allegiance\". In all such examples, \"administer\" is the correct and natural verb. Substituting any of the other options into those sentences would sound odd or incorrect, confirming that \"administer\" is the only appropriate choice here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option \"confer\": To confer means to grant or bestow, usually a degree or title, not to oversee the taking of an oath. Option \"present\": Presenting something is mainly about giving or showing it, not about formally supervising an oath taking ceremony. Option \"execute\": While it is used in legal contexts for documents and wills, it is not used for oaths in standard formal English. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates see legal sounding words like \"execute\" or \"confer\" and choose them because they appear formal. However, collocations are very specific in legal English. Learning fixed phrases such as \"administer an oath\" will help you avoid such traps in exams. Final Answer: The sentence should be: The Governor will administer the oath of office to the thirty five new ministers at 9.30 p.m. tomorrow. Thus, the correct option is administer.

Question 18

Fill in the blank with the most appropriate verb to complete the sentence correctly in formal English: Most of the students have forgotten to bring their certificates; they will be _______ by the Principal for this reason.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of precise vocabulary and formal English usage in the context of discipline in an academic institution. Several verbs are given that seem related to blame or criticism, but only one fits the tone and meaning of what a school Principal would normally do when students forget to bring important certificates. Given Data / Assumptions: Most of the students have forgotten to bring their certificates. The Principal is reacting to this lapse. The missing word must be a verb that describes the Principal's action. The context is a formal school or college setting. Concept / Approach: The key is to choose a verb that matches both the meaning and the register (formal tone). In school contexts, a Principal usually scolds or formally criticizes students, but does not normally abuse them or accuse them of crimes. The word should express formal disapproval rather than physical or verbal mistreatment. Step-by-Step Solution: First, understand that the Principal is displeased because students forgot certificates.Next, check each option for meaning and tone in a school context.“Abused” suggests harsh, insulting or cruel treatment; this is too strong and inappropriate.“Accused” is usually used when someone is blamed for an offence or crime, which does not fit a simple case of carelessness.“Reproached” means expressed disapproval, and “reprimanded” means given an official scolding or formal warning.In a formal institutional context, “reprimanded by the Principal” is the most natural and common collocation. Verification / Alternative check: If you mentally replace the blank with each option, “reprimanded by the Principal” clearly sounds like standard school English. It also appears frequently in exam passages and administrative language, confirming that this is the best and most idiomatic choice among the four options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Reproached” is close in meaning but less commonly used in this exact collocation; “reprimanded” is stronger and more formal. “Abused” usually implies cruelty or violence, which is not implied here. “Accused” suggests being charged with an offence, which is not the case for simply forgetting certificates. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to choose a word only because it is vaguely negative, without considering how it is actually used in real sentences. Students may also confuse “reproach” and “reprimand”, but “reprimand” is more suitable when a superior formally scolds subordinates in an official capacity. Final Answer: The correct verb to complete the sentence is reprimanded.

Question 19

Choose the most appropriate phrase to complete the sentence correctly: Mrs. Ramsay did not know whether Miss Jane knew _________.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This English grammar question checks your understanding of verb patterns and how certain verbs, such as “know”, combine naturally with gerunds and infinitives. The sentence focuses on expressing knowledge of a skill, in this case, the ability to swim. You must select the phrase that makes the sentence grammatically correct and idiomatic. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is Mrs. Ramsay. She is unsure about Miss Jane's knowledge or ability. The missing phrase relates to the skill of swimming. The structure must follow “know + object” in a natural way. Concept / Approach: In English, the verb “know” can be followed by a noun, a gerund (verb + ing used as a noun), or patterns like “know how to + verb”. In Indian English, “know swimming” is a standard, accepted usage that treats “swimming” as a noun-like activity. Alternatives like “know to swim” or “know how to swimming” do not follow correct patterns. Step-by-Step Solution: Look at the core idea: Does Miss Jane have the skill of swimming?Check “swimming”: “know swimming” is commonly used to mean “know how to swim”.Check “to swim”: “know to swim” is awkward and rarely used; it usually needs “how” before it.Check “him to swim”: this wrongly introduces “him” and breaks the meaning of the original sentence.Check “how to swimming”: this is grammatically wrong; it should be “how to swim”, not “how to swimming”.Therefore, the best option that produces a natural and acceptable sentence is “swimming”. Verification / Alternative check: Read the full sentence with the chosen option: “Mrs. Ramsay did not know whether Miss Jane knew swimming.” This is a clear, standard way (especially in Indian English) to say that Miss Jane may or may not know how to swim. No other option forms a fully correct and natural sentence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To swim” would require “how” to be correct: “knew how to swim”, which is not provided in the options. “Him to swim” changes the meaning and introduces an extra pronoun. “How to swimming” is grammatically incorrect because “how to” must be followed by the base form of the verb, not a gerund. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse patterns like “know swimming” and “know to swim”, or try to mix structures (“how to swimming”). It is important to remember that “how to + base verb” is correct, while “know swimming” is an accepted shorthand form meaning “know how to swim”. Final Answer: The correct phrase to complete the sentence is swimming.

Question 20

Select the most appropriate verb to complete the sentence correctly: He _________ the role of the organization in creating environmental awareness among the people.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary-based question tests your ability to choose a verb that fits both the meaning and the context of a sentence about environmental awareness. The focus is on how someone speaks about or responds to the role of an organization. You must select the verb that expresses praise and approval for the organization's contribution. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject “He” is evaluating the role of an organization. The organization is involved in creating environmental awareness among people. The context is positive, as environmental awareness is generally considered a good activity. The verb must show his attitude toward that role. Concept / Approach: Different verbs carry different connotations. “Commend” means to praise formally or express approval. “Collaborate” means to work together. “Command” is to order or demand, and “contrast” is to compare in a way that highlights differences. Because the sentence talks about “the role of the organization”, the verb should express approval of that role rather than cooperation, ordering, or comparing. Step-by-Step Solution: First, understand that creating environmental awareness is something positive.Next, check which verb can naturally follow “He ______ the role of the organization”.“Collaborated the role” is ungrammatical; one collaborates “with” someone, not “the role”.“Commanded the role” would imply ordering the role, which does not fit.“Contrasted the role” would mean he compared it with something else, not praised it.“Commended the role” means he praised the role of the organization, which perfectly matches the positive context. Verification / Alternative check: Insert each verb into the sentence and read it aloud. Only “commended” gives a smooth, natural expression: “He commended the role of the organization in creating environmental awareness among the people.” This clearly conveys that he appreciated and praised their efforts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Collaborated” needs “with” and refers to working together, not evaluating. “Commanded” refers to ordering or having authority, which is not the idea here. “Contrasted” suggests comparison, not approval. None of these express positive praise for the organization's environmental work. Common Pitfalls: Students may be tempted by words that look or sound similar, like “commanded” and “commended”, or may choose a familiar word like “collaborated” without checking whether it fits grammatically. Always think about both meaning and typical usage patterns (collocations) in English sentences. Final Answer: The correct verb to complete the sentence is commended.

English Questions