Question 1

In the following question, a sentence is given in Direct speech. Choose the option that correctly expresses the same idea in Indirect speech: Rashmi said to me, "Where is the telephone exchange"?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests reported speech, also called indirect speech, focusing on reporting a question. In English, when we report a wh question, we generally use the reporting verb asked and keep the wh word, such as where, but we change the word order to that of a statement instead of a direct question. Understanding this structure is important for accurate grammar in both spoken and written English, especially in formal contexts or examinations. Given Data / Assumptions: - Direct speech: Rashmi said to me, "Where is the telephone exchange"? - We must convert this into indirect speech. - The reporting verb is said to, which often becomes asked in reported questions. - The wh word where must be retained but the auxiliary and subject order needs adjustment. Concept / Approach: When transforming direct wh questions into indirect speech, the following rules usually apply. First, change said to into asked if the question is genuine information seeking. Second, remove the quotation marks and connect the sentence using the wh word directly, without using that. Third, use the normal statement order subject plus verb, and, if the reporting verb is in the past, shift the tense in the reported clause where appropriate. In this case, is becomes was because the reporting verb is in the past tense said. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Replace said to me with asked me, since Rashmi is asking a question.Step 2: Remove the quotation marks and connect the reported part with the wh word where, so we start the reported clause with where.Step 3: Change the question order is the telephone exchange into the statement order the telephone exchange was.Step 4: Apply tense backshift since the reporting verb is in the past. The present tense is becomes the past tense was.Step 5: The final indirect sentence becomes Rashmi asked me where the telephone exchange was. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify the answer by imagining the original situation. If someone reports the conversation later, they would naturally say Rashmi asked me where the telephone exchange was. The meaning remains the same as the direct question, but there are no quotation marks and the sentence follows normal statement order. There is no need for that after asked in a wh question because the wh word already links the clauses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Rashmi asked me that where the telephone exchange was is wrong because that is not used together with a wh word in this structure. - Rashmi asked me where was the telephone exchange uses question order in an indirect sentence, which is incorrect. Indirect speech requires statement order subject followed by verb. - Rashmi wanted to know where the telephone exchange was is grammatically correct but changes the reporting verb from asked to wanted to know, which is not the best direct transformation of the original said to me construction for an examination question. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to keep the auxiliary before the subject in reported questions, for example where was the telephone exchange, which looks like a direct question. Another mistake is to insert that after asked when a wh word is already present. Learners should also remember to make tense changes where needed when the reporting verb is in the past. Regular practice with different question types helps to internalise these patterns and avoid confusion in exams. Final Answer: The correct indirect speech form is Rashmi asked me where the telephone exchange was.

Question 2

In the following question, a sentence is divided into four parts. Identify the part that contains an error in standard English usage, or select 4 for No error: I was shocked to hear / that her husband / died of an accident. / No error.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Error spotting questions in English grammar are designed to check a learner's awareness of standard idiomatic usage. This sentence talks about someone's reaction to the news of a death, and the error lies in the preposition used with the word died. Examinations frequently test preposition collocations because they are often memorised rather than derived by rule. Understanding which preposition naturally follows a particular verb is essential for correct, natural sounding English. Given Data / Assumptions: - The full sentence is: I was shocked to hear that her husband died of an accident. - It is divided into four parts labelled 1, 2, 3 and 4. - Part 1: I was shocked to hear - Part 2: that her husband - Part 3: died of an accident. - Part 4: No error - We must choose the part which contains the grammatical or idiomatic error. Concept / Approach: The key concept here is verb plus preposition collocation. In English, we usually say die of a disease or die from an illness but die in an accident. The choice of preposition reflects the typical pattern of usage. The words of and from are used more with internal causes like disease or wounds, while in is used with external events like accidents, fires or wars. Once we recall this rule, we can quickly see that died of an accident is not the natural collocation and needs correction. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine each part of the sentence: Part 1, I was shocked to hear, is a standard phrase and correct.Step 2: Part 2, that her husband, simply introduces the clause and does not contain any error.Step 3: Part 3, died of an accident, stands out because the preposition of sounds unnatural with accident.Step 4: Apply the rule that we normally say died in an accident, not died of an accident.Step 5: Therefore the error lies in part 3, and the corrected sentence should read died in an accident. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, we can compare similar phrases. We say He died of cancer or She died of a heart attack, where of is correct because it states the cause in terms of a disease. In contrast, we say Many people died in the accident or Several passengers died in the crash. Native usage and standard grammar references support die in an accident rather than die of an accident. Since no other parts of the sentence show grammatical problems, part 3 is confirmed as the only incorrect segment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Part 1, I was shocked to hear, is grammatically correct and expresses a natural emotional reaction. - Part 2, that her husband, correctly introduces the object clause and does not need any change. - Part 4, No error, cannot be chosen because we have clearly identified an error in part 3. Common Pitfalls: Learners often confuse the prepositions of, from and in with the verb die. They may also be misled by hearing non standard usage in casual speech. Another pitfall is to search for overly complex errors in tense or structure and miss a simpler collocation issue. To avoid this, it is helpful to practise lists of common verb plus preposition combinations and to read widely in order to internalise natural patterns. Remember that in accident or in a car crash is the standard usage in formal English. Final Answer: The error is in part 3, because the correct phrase is died in an accident, not died of an accident.

Question 3

In the following question, a sentence is divided into four parts. Identify the part that contains an error in standard English usage, or select 4 for No error: The reason for / his failure is because / he did not study at all. / No error.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This grammar question checks the correct way to express reason in English. The sentence as given contains a redundancy that is common in everyday speech but is considered incorrect in standard written English. Examinations often test this structure because many speakers do not notice the extra word. Learning the precise pattern helps candidates write more concise and accurate sentences, which is essential for formal communication and competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: - The sentence is: The reason for his failure is because he did not study at all. - It is split into four parts: (1) The reason for, (2) his failure is because, (3) he did not study at all, (4) No error. - We have to identify the part that contains the grammatical error. - The intended sense is to state why he failed. Concept / Approach: The main concept is redundancy in expressions of reason. The phrase the reason is already indicates cause, so it should be followed by a clause introduced by that or by a simple clause, not by because. The forms The reason is that he did not study at all or He failed because he did not study at all are both correct, but combining reason with is because creates an unnecessary duplicate expression of cause. This structure is considered incorrect in standard usage and is often highlighted in grammar textbooks. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Look at each part separately. Part 1, The reason for, is a correct beginning of a noun phrase.Step 2: Part 2, his failure is because, joins the subject phrase to a clause of reason using is because.Step 3: Recognise that the combination reason and because is redundant. We should either say The reason for his failure is that he did not study at all, or He failed because he did not study at all.Step 4: Therefore, the error is located in part 2, where because is incorrectly used after the word reason.Step 5: The corrected sentence is The reason for his failure is that he did not study at all. Verification / Alternative check: We can cross check by comparing similar sentences. We say The reason for the delay is that the train arrived late, not The reason for the delay is because the train arrived late. Also, we can restate the idea without the noun reason: He failed because he did not study at all, which shows that because alone is enough to introduce the clause of cause. Thus, including both reason and because together is not stylistically acceptable in formal English. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Part 1, The reason for, is fine and is often used in such constructions. - Part 3, he did not study at all, correctly explains the cause and contains no grammatical error. - Part 4, No error, is not correct because we have clearly located an error in part 2. Common Pitfalls: Many learners copy patterns from informal speech where is because after reason may occur. Another pitfall is focusing only on verb forms and ignoring logical redundancy. When checking for errors, always consider whether any word or phrase repeats the same idea unnecessarily. Remember that after the phrase the reason is, the conjunction that is the standard choice, and using because directly after reason should be avoided in precise written English. Final Answer: The incorrect segment is part 2, since the phrase should be his failure is that he did not study at all, not his failure is because he did not study at all.

Question 4

In the following sentence, a blank is given. Choose the most appropriate word to complete the sentence meaningfully: Only when _____ failed, the army resorted to force.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a vocabulary based sentence completion question that checks a learner's ability to select the most suitable word from a set of options so that the sentence makes logical and idiomatic sense. The sentence talks about the army using force only after some other approach had failed. This type of question requires attention not only to dictionary meaning but also to typical combinations of words and real life logic. Given Data / Assumptions: - Sentence: Only when _____ failed, the army resorted to force. - Options: efforts, arrests, persuasions, manipulations. - The blank refers to something that can fail before an army decides to use force. - The context implies that some peaceful or non violent means was tried first. Concept / Approach: In real situations, an army or authority usually tries negotiation, persuasion or diplomatic efforts before resorting to force. The phrase Only when blank failed, the army resorted to force suggests that some method other than force was attempted earlier. Among the given options, persuasions fits this idea best, because persuasion refers to attempts to convince others by argument or appeal. Efforts is possible but less precise, arrests and manipulations do not match the typical logical sequence that would justify later use of force. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret the basic meaning of the sentence. It claims that force was used only after another approach had not worked.Step 2: Check each option. Efforts is a general word that can refer to any kind of attempt, but it does not highlight peaceful negotiation.Step 3: Arrests means taking people into custody, which is already a form of coercion rather than a step before force.Step 4: Persuasions refers to attempts to convince people through reasoning or appeals and is therefore a clear non violent method that can be tried before force.Step 5: Manipulations suggest secret or unfair control, which does not suit a neutral examination sentence about an army.Step 6: Thus, persuasions is the best fit. The complete sentence becomes: Only when persuasions failed, the army resorted to force. Verification / Alternative check: We can test the sentence with each option. Only when efforts failed, the army resorted to force is grammatical but vague. Only when arrests failed sounds illogical because arrests are already strong actions. Only when manipulations failed gives a negative impression that the army was behaving in an unethical way, which is unlikely for a neutral exam sentence. Only when persuasions failed, the army resorted to force reads natural and matches the usual progression from soft measures to strong measures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Efforts is too general and does not clearly indicate a contrast with force, although not strictly wrong, it is not the best choice among the given words. - Arrests represent a severe legal or forceful step, not something tried before the use of force by soldiers. - Manipulations implies underhand control and does not fit a formal context that aims to be neutral and balanced. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes choose a word simply because it seems grammatically correct, without checking if it matches the context. Another common error is ignoring the logical sequence in the real world, for example choosing arrests without recognising that this is already a harsh measure. To avoid such mistakes, always imagine the situation described by the sentence and ask which option naturally fits that scenario. Words related to diplomacy and negotiation usually appear before any reference to force or violence. Final Answer: The correct word to complete the sentence is persuasions.

Question 5

In the following question, choose the option that is similar in meaning to the given word: Pernicious.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question asks for a synonym, that is, a word with a meaning similar to the given word pernicious. Such questions are very common in competitive exams because they directly test a learner's depth of vocabulary and sensitivity to shades of meaning. The word pernicious is often used in serious writing, for example in discussions about harmful habits, policies or influences, so understanding it is useful for both exams and general English. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: Pernicious. - Options: Beneficial, Dangerous, Innocuous, Advantageous. - We need the option whose meaning is closest to that of pernicious. - The context is general vocabulary, not limited to any special technical field. Concept / Approach: Pernicious describes something that is extremely harmful, often in a gradual or subtle way. It can refer to habits, ideas, diseases or influences that cause serious damage. When comparing with the options, we look for a word that carries a clearly harmful sense. Dangerous means likely to cause harm or injury, which is close in meaning. Beneficial and advantageous both describe positive, helpful effects, while innocuous means harmless. Therefore, Dangerous is the correct synonym for pernicious in this set of options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall or infer the meaning of pernicious. It means highly harmful or destructive.Step 2: Examine the option Beneficial. It means producing good results or helpful effects, which is the opposite of harmful.Step 3: Check Dangerous. It means likely to cause harm, damage or injury, which aligns well with the harmful sense of pernicious.Step 4: Look at Innocuous. It means harmless or not likely to offend, again the opposite of pernicious.Step 5: Consider Advantageous. It describes something that gives benefit or advantage and is therefore positive, not harmful.Step 6: Among the four, Dangerous is clearly the closest in meaning to pernicious. Verification / Alternative check: We can test the word in example sentences. A pernicious habit slowly ruined his health sounds very similar to A dangerous habit slowly ruined his health. On the other hand, replacing pernicious with beneficial or advantageous produces nonsense because those words imply good effects. Using innocuous also changes the meaning completely because innocuous implies no harm. Hence, Dangerous is confirmed as the best synonym in ordinary usage when no fine technical distinction is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Beneficial suggests something good for a person or situation, which directly contradicts the harmful sense of pernicious. - Innocuous means harmless, mild or not offensive, which again is the opposite of pernicious. - Advantageous refers to something that offers an advantage or gain and has a positive connotation rather than a negative one. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse pernicious with words that simply mean bad or unpleasant, without noting the strong idea of harm or damage. They may also be misled by unfamiliar spellings or pick an option that looks difficult on the assumption that it must be the right answer. A better strategy is to learn high frequency academic words like pernicious with their typical collocations, for example pernicious influence, pernicious effects or pernicious weed, so that the negative and harmful sense becomes clear and memorable. Final Answer: The word that is similar in meaning to pernicious is Dangerous.

Question 6

In the following question, choose the option that is similar in meaning to the given word: Stringent.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks understanding of the word stringent, which is often used in formal writing to describe rules, laws or conditions. Vocabulary questions like this one require candidates to match the key word with its closest synonym among the options. Knowing the meaning of stringent is important for reading comprehension, especially in passages about regulation, policy or academic standards. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: Stringent. - Options: Annoying, Revengeful, Incidental, Rigorous. - We must find the word whose meaning is closest to that of stringent. - The context likely involves strictness and severity, not emotions or accidents. Concept / Approach: Stringent typically means very strict, severe or demanding, especially with respect to rules, standards or conditions. When comparing with the options, we should look for a word that conveys strictness and firmness rather than emotion or chance. Rigorous also means extremely thorough, accurate or strict. The other options, Annoying, Revengeful and Incidental, deal with irritation, desire for revenge and something occurring by chance respectively, and do not match the core meaning of stringent. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the meaning of stringent as strict, severe or very firm about rules.Step 2: Consider Annoying, which means causing irritation or mild anger, not strict.Step 3: Look at Revengeful, which describes a desire to take revenge and relates to emotion, not rules.Step 4: Examine Incidental, which means happening as a minor part or by chance, and has no connection with strictness.Step 5: Consider Rigorous, which means extremely thorough, accurate or strict, especially with rules or testing.Step 6: Since Rigorous is closest in meaning to Stringent, it is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: We can place the word in example sentences. Stringent safety regulations were introduced to prevent accidents has almost the same meaning as Rigorous safety regulations were introduced to prevent accidents. Using Annoying, Revengeful or Incidental in place of Stringent would not make any logical sense. Dictionaries and usage examples consistently pair stringent with rules, measures or controls, which confirms its close similarity to rigorous in many contexts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Annoying indicates something that irritates or bothers and does not involve strictness or severity of rules. - Revengeful refers to a person who wants to take revenge and deals with personal emotion, not standards. - Incidental refers to something secondary or happening by chance, so it is unrelated to the core idea of firm control. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes confuse stringent with words connected to emotion because they focus on the serious tone rather than the exact definition. Another mistake is to guess based on sound instead of meaning. To avoid such errors, it is useful to learn some common phrases like stringent rules, stringent measures or stringent conditions, so that the association with strictness becomes clear and fixed in memory. Recognising that rigorous appears in similar contexts makes the synonym link easier to remember. Final Answer: The word that is similar in meaning to Stringent is Rigorous.

Question 7

In the following question, choose the option that is opposite in meaning to the given word: Vexatious.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks for an antonym of the word vexatious. Antonyms test whether a learner not only knows the meaning of a word but can also recognise its opposite. Vexatious is a descriptive term used for things that cause annoyance, worry or irritation. Understanding both the word and its opposite helps improve expressive range in English, especially for descriptive writing and comprehension passages. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: Vexatious. - Options: Calamitous, Treachery, Soothing, Pliable. - We must select the option which means the opposite of vexatious. - The context is standard English vocabulary, not a special technical field. Concept / Approach: Vexatious describes something that causes a lot of trouble, annoyance or worry. For example, a vexatious problem or a vexatious delay disturbs or irritates those who face it. The opposite of causing irritation would be something that calms, comforts or relaxes. Among the options, Soothing clearly carries this sense of comfort and relief. Calamitous means causing great damage or disaster, Treachery means betrayal, and Pliable means easily bent or influenced, none of which represent the calming opposite of vexatious. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that vexatious means extremely annoying or causing persistent trouble.Step 2: Consider Calamitous. This means disastrous or causing a major calamity, which is more serious than mere annoyance and not the exact opposite.Step 3: Treachery refers to betrayal of trust and does not relate to annoyance versus calm.Step 4: Soothing means calming, comforting or reducing pain and irritation, which directly contrasts with causing annoyance.Step 5: Pliable means easily bent or easily influenced, which is unrelated to how irritating or calming something is.Step 6: Hence, Soothing is the best antonym of vexatious among the given options. Verification / Alternative check: We can test the words in context. A vexatious noise in the street kept him awake, but a soothing lullaby helped him sleep, shows clear opposition. Vexatious and soothing stand on opposite sides of the comfort scale. Using Calamitous, Treachery or Pliable in that place does not create any natural contrast. Therefore, the pairing vexatious versus soothing makes the most sense for an antonym question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Calamitous suggests large scale disaster, which is still negative, not opposite to vexatious in the sense of calming or pleasant. - Treachery deals with betrayal and is a moral term, not simply about irritation or comfort. - Pliable refers to flexibility or susceptibility to influence, which has no direct connection with the idea of vexing or soothing. Common Pitfalls: Test takers sometimes pick another negative word as an antonym simply because the given word feels negative. However, an antonym should reverse the quality, not just differ in direction. For vexatious, the opposite quality is calm or comfort, not a different type of harm like disaster or betrayal. To avoid confusion, always translate the target word into a simple phrase in your mind, such as very annoying, and then look for an option that means the reverse, for example very calming. Final Answer: The word that is opposite in meaning to Vexatious is Soothing.

Question 8

In the following question, choose the option that is opposite in meaning to the given word: Burgeon.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question asks for an antonym of the verb burgeon. Burgeon is commonly used in formal English to describe rapid growth or expansion, whether in business, population, technology or ideas. Identifying its opposite helps to strengthen understanding of words that describe trends and changes, which are often seen in newspaper editorials and analytical passages. Given Data / Assumptions: - Target word: Burgeon. - Options: Bolster, Shrivel, Mount, Amplify. - We must choose the word that expresses the opposite meaning. - The general context is growth versus decline or expansion versus reduction. Concept / Approach: Burgeon means to grow or expand rapidly, often with a sense of flourishing or sudden increase. For example, a burgeoning city or a burgeoning industry is one that is growing quickly. The opposite idea would be shrinking, withering or declining. Among the options, Shrivel means to become smaller, drier or weaker, very much the reverse of growth. Bolster means to support or strengthen, Mount means to rise or increase, and Amplify means to make larger or more intense. All three of these lean toward growth, not decline, and therefore cannot be antonyms of burgeon. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that burgeon means to grow or expand quickly and flourish.Step 2: Examine Bolster. It means to support or strengthen, which can lead to growth, so it is similar, not opposite.Step 3: Look at Shrivel. It means to shrink, dry up or become weaker, which is the opposite of growing and flourishing.Step 4: Consider Mount. It means to increase or rise, again closer to the idea of growth.Step 5: Check Amplify. This word means to make something larger, stronger or more intense, which is also a kind of growth.Step 6: Based on this analysis, Shrivel is the correct antonym of Burgeon. Verification / Alternative check: We can compare sample sentences. The company's profits began to burgeon after the new policy suggests strong growth, while The company's profits began to shrivel after the new policy implies a marked decline. These two sentences contrast very clearly. Replacing burgeon with Bolster, Mount or Amplify in such contexts would not create an opposite meaning but either maintain or strengthen the idea of increase. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Bolster means to support or reinforce, which usually helps growth rather than oppose it. - Mount refers to rising or increasing, often used in phrases like mounting pressure, so it is similar to burgeon in direction. - Amplify means to make larger or more powerful, again linked with increase, not decrease. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to confuse synonyms and antonyms when several options appear to share a sense of intensity or size. Candidates may also pick a word simply because it looks unfamiliar. To avoid this, first restate the target word in simpler English, such as burgeon equals grow rapidly, and then search for the option that clearly indicates the opposite trend, such as shrink or wither. This strategy helps distinguish between words that support the same direction and those that truly reverse it. Final Answer: The word that is opposite in meaning to Burgeon is Shrivel.

Question 9

In the following question, choose the option that best expresses the meaning of the idiom "Live from hand to mouth".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with an English idiom, Live from hand to mouth. Idioms are fixed expressions whose meanings cannot always be guessed from the individual words, so they must be learned as complete units. Examinations often include idioms because they show how well a learner understands natural, everyday English beyond literal vocabulary. Here we must choose the explanation that matches the established meaning of the idiom. Given Data / Assumptions: - Idiom: Live from hand to mouth. - Options: filthy rich people, to be dependent on others, to have enough money to live on and nothing extra, living in miserable conditions. - The idiom relates to a person's financial state and daily living conditions. - We must find the meaning that best matches standard usage. Concept / Approach: Live from hand to mouth describes a situation in which a person earns or has just enough money to meet basic daily needs, with no savings or surplus. It does not necessarily mean total misery, but it indicates financial insecurity and the absence of extra resources. Looking at the options, the one that reflects this idea is to have enough money to live on and nothing extra. The other options either exaggerate the poverty or shift the meaning in an incorrect direction. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the standard meaning of Live from hand to mouth as living with barely enough income to cover daily expenses.Step 2: Option filthy rich people clearly cannot be correct because it describes extreme wealth, not lack of surplus.Step 3: To be dependent on others suggests relying on someone else for support, which is a different idea. A person living from hand to mouth may still be earning an income independently.Step 4: To have enough money to live on and nothing extra matches the sense of surviving day to day without savings or comfort.Step 5: Living in miserable conditions is too broad and can describe many kinds of hardship, not specifically the narrow financial meaning of the idiom.Step 6: Therefore, the correct explanation is to have enough money to live on and nothing extra. Verification / Alternative check: Typical example sentences support this meaning. For instance, After he lost his job, he had to live from hand to mouth for a few years before things improved, clearly indicates that his income was barely enough for daily needs. It does not necessarily say that he was dependent on others or that he was always in miserable surroundings, although both could be true in some cases. The core meaning, however, is the lack of surplus money beyond basic requirements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Filthy rich people refers to very wealthy individuals and expresses the opposite social image of what the idiom conveys. - To be dependent on others only focuses on reliance and does not capture the specific idea of income just matching expenses. - Living in miserable conditions may include extreme poverty, illness or other hardships, but does not specifically reflect the fixed phrase Live from hand to mouth. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse idioms that describe poverty and hardship, treating them as interchangeable. They may also misinterpret the phrase literally, thinking it has something to do with eating habits rather than income. To avoid such errors, it is important to learn idioms with clear definitions and sample sentences. When answering exam questions, always choose the option that captures the core sense of the idiom without adding or changing key elements. Final Answer: The idiom Live from hand to mouth means to have enough money to live on and nothing extra.

Question 10

In the following question, choose the option that best expresses the meaning of the idiom "To face the music".

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on the idiom To face the music. Idioms often have meanings that are very different from the literal combination of words. Here, the expression has nothing to do with actual musical performance. Examiners use such questions to check whether candidates are familiar with common figurative expressions used in everyday English and in written texts like stories, reports and editorials. Given Data / Assumptions: - Idiom: To face the music. - Options: to bear the consequences, to disparage someone, to be hard of hearing, to enjoy a musical concert. - We must identify the meaning that matches the commonly accepted figurative sense of the idiom. - The idiom is often used in situations involving responsibility and punishment. Concept / Approach: To face the music means to accept and endure the unpleasant consequences of one's actions. It suggests that a person is no longer avoiding responsibility and is ready to face blame, punishment or criticism. It does not refer to insulting others, having difficulty hearing or enjoying music literally. The correct explanation among the choices is therefore to bear the consequences. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the established meaning of To face the music as accepting punishment or criticism for something done.Step 2: Option to bear the consequences matches this definition exactly, as it refers to accepting the results of one's actions, good or bad.Step 3: To disparage someone means to speak ill of a person or criticise them, which does not match the idiom.Step 4: To be hard of hearing describes a physical difficulty with hearing and is unrelated to responsibility or consequences.Step 5: To enjoy a musical concert is a literal interpretation of music and enjoyment, not the figurative sense of facing criticism or punishment.Step 6: Therefore, the best answer is to bear the consequences. Verification / Alternative check: We can analyse example sentences. After cheating in the exam, he had to face the music when the teacher found out clearly means he had to accept the punishment and criticism. Replacing face the music with bear the consequences keeps the meaning intact. If we tried to substitute any of the other options, the sentence would either become meaningless or change meaning completely. This confirms that the idiom is about accepting the results of one's own actions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - To disparage someone means to speak about someone in a disrespectful or critical way, which is an action directed at another person, not at oneself. - To be hard of hearing concerns a physical condition and has no connection with punishment, guilt or responsibility. - To enjoy a musical concert is a literal phrase that does not match the figurative idiom used to indicate acceptance of blame. Common Pitfalls: Candidates may be tempted by literal sounding options when they are not fully familiar with an idiom. Others may confuse To face the music with expressions like To call the tune, which has a very different meaning. The best way to avoid confusion is to study idioms in context and note their typical situations of use. When in doubt, think of whether the idiom naturally appears in stories where a character is being punished or confronted with their own mistakes, as is the case here. Final Answer: The idiom To face the music means to bear the consequences of one's actions.

Question 11

In the following sentence, choose the option that improves the underlined part: He thanked me for what I (have done) for his wife.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This grammar question tests the correct use of tense in a complex sentence involving reported appreciation. The sentence describes someone thanking another person for a past action. English often uses the past perfect tense to show that one past event happened before another past event. Recognising this relationship helps in choosing the correct tense for the part in brackets. Given Data / Assumptions: - Full sentence: He thanked me for what I have done for his wife. - Underlined or bracketed part: have done. - We must select the option that makes the sentence grammatically correct and natural. - The main verb thanked is in the simple past. Concept / Approach: When we talk about two actions in the past where one happened earlier than the other, it is common to use the past perfect tense for the earlier action. Here, I did something for his wife first, and later he thanked me for it. Therefore, the action of doing came before the action of thanking. The correct tense for the earlier action is had done, not have done. Present perfect have done would link the action closely to the present moment, which does not fit with the past context of thanked. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main clause and its tense. He thanked me is in the simple past.Step 2: Notice that the action I did for his wife happened before he thanked me, so it is an earlier past event.Step 3: The correct way to show that one past action occurred before another past action is to use the past perfect tense for the earlier action, that is, had done.Step 4: Replace have done with had done to form He thanked me for what I had done for his wife.Step 5: Check that the sentence now sounds natural and shows the correct time relationship between the two actions. Verification / Alternative check: If we keep have done, the sentence reads He thanked me for what I have done for his wife, which mixes simple past and present perfect without a clear reason. Present perfect is usually used when the earlier action remains relevant up to the present or when the time is not specified. Since the thanking already took place in the past, it is more accurate to see the helpful action as completed before that moment. The version with had done matches the standard pattern: He thanked me for what I had done for his wife, similar to He thanked me for what I had done earlier. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Had been done uses passive voice and would imply that the action was done by someone unnamed, not by me, which changes the meaning. - Have been done also uses passive voice and the present perfect tense, which is inappropriate in this fully past context. - No improvement would keep have done, which is not the best tense choice given the clear sequence of past actions. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overuse the present perfect tense because they see it frequently in examples like I have finished my work. They may also forget the function of the past perfect in showing earlier past actions. A helpful strategy is to place time markers mentally: first the helpful action, then the expression of thanks. Whenever there is a clear earlier past followed by a later past, the earlier one usually needs had plus past participle. Practising more such pairs strengthens this understanding. Final Answer: The correct improvement is had done, so the sentence should read: He thanked me for what I had done for his wife.

Question 12

In the following sentence, choose the option that improves the underlined part: (Hardly nothing) was offered to the victims of the earthquake.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines the correct use of negative expressions in English. The phrase Hardly nothing in the sentence creates a double negative, which is not acceptable in standard formal English. Examinations frequently test this concept because double negatives can confuse meaning and are a common error for learners. The goal is to choose a form that clearly expresses a very small quantity without violating standard rules. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: Hardly nothing was offered to the victims of the earthquake. - Underlined part: Hardly nothing. - Options: Hardly something, Hardly anything, Hardly little, No improvement. - The sentence describes the small amount of help supplied to the victims. Concept / Approach: Hardly is already a negative adverb meaning almost not or scarcely. When we say Hardly anything, we express that very little or almost no thing was given. If we combine Hardly with nothing, we create a double negative, which can turn the meaning into a positive in strict logical terms and is not used in standard written English. Therefore the phrase must be adjusted to Hardly anything in order to keep just one negative element and preserve the intended sense of very little help. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that Hardly carries a negative idea similar to almost not.Step 2: Notice that nothing is also negative, so Hardly nothing has two negative words.Step 3: In formal English, double negatives of this type are avoided because they can make the statement unclear or logically positive.Step 4: The correct combination is Hardly anything, which uses one negative idea and one indefinite pronoun to convey the sense of almost no help.Step 5: The improved sentence therefore reads: Hardly anything was offered to the victims of the earthquake. Verification / Alternative check: Compare three versions: Hardly anything was offered clearly means almost no assistance was given. Nothing was offered means absolutely no help. Hardly nothing was offered is a non standard colloquial form that some speakers may use, but it is not recommended in careful writing. Exam questions expect the candidate to avoid such double negatives and choose the standard combination Hardly anything, especially when describing small or insufficient quantities. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Hardly something is not idiomatic. English does not normally combine Hardly with something in this way when talking about quantity. - Hardly little is also incorrect because it mixes an adverb and a determinative in a clumsy way and still suggests a double negative effect. - No improvement cannot be chosen since the given phrase Hardly nothing is not acceptable in standard written English for exams. Common Pitfalls: Many learners transfer patterns from informal speech, where double negatives sometimes appear, into formal writing. Another pitfall is to think that adding more negative words will intensify the meaning. In standard English, it is actually clearer and more correct to use just one negative with an appropriate pronoun or determiner, such as hardly anything, scarcely any or almost no. Practising these standard combinations will help avoid such mistakes in error spotting questions. Final Answer: The correct improvement of the underlined part is Hardly anything, giving the sentence: Hardly anything was offered to the victims of the earthquake.

Question 13

In the following question, choose the one-word substitute for the given phrase: Killing of one's own child.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about one-word substitution, a frequent topic in English vocabulary sections of competitive exams. The phrase given relates to the act of killing one's own child. Many English words for killing are formed with the suffix cide, which means killing or act of killing. Understanding the roots of such words helps candidates select the exact term that fits the given definition. Given Data / Assumptions: - Phrase: Killing of one's own child. - Options: Foeticide, Filicide, Infanticide, Lupicide. - We must choose the single word that accurately describes this act. - The context is vocabulary related to types of killing, often used in legal, medical or ethical discussions. Concept / Approach: The root fili or filius in Latin refers to a son or child, while fetic or foetic refers to a fetus. Infans in Latin refers to a very young baby, and lupus means wolf. Therefore, the word Filicide literally means killing of one's own son or daughter. Foeticide means killing of a fetus, for example during an illegal procedure. Infanticide is killing of an infant or very young baby, and Lupicide is killing of a wolf. The phrase in the question specifically mentions one's own child, not a fetus or a particular animal, so Filicide is the most accurate term. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key idea in the phrase: the victim is one's own child.Step 2: Recall that Foeticide refers to the killing of a fetus, usually before birth, which is different from killing a child already born.Step 3: Recognise that Filicide combines fili, meaning child or son, with cide, meaning killing, and therefore denotes killing of one's own child.Step 4: Understand that Infanticide refers to the killing of an infant, which may or may not be one's own child, so it is less precise for this definition.Step 5: Note that Lupicide describes killing of a wolf and is clearly unrelated to the given phrase.Step 6: Thus, Filicide is the one-word substitute that matches the phrase Killing of one's own child. Verification / Alternative check: Dictionaries and legal references define Filicide as the killing of one's own son or daughter. Infanticide is defined as the killing of an infant, often without reference to the relationship between the killer and the child. Foeticide is specifically associated with a fetus. Since the question stresses one's own child without limiting the age strictly to infancy or fetal stage, Filicide is the best and most accurate match. Infanticide, although close, does not include the idea of the killer being the parent, which is central to the phrase. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Foeticide refers to the destruction of a fetus inside the womb and not to a child already born. - Infanticide refers to killing an infant, which may be committed by anyone, not necessarily a parent, so it does not fully capture the idea of one's own child. - Lupicide is killing of a wolf and clearly does not relate to human children. Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse Filicide with Infanticide because both involve children. Examinations deliberately place these similar words together to test precise knowledge. Another pitfall is ignoring word roots and guessing randomly. A helpful technique is to learn common Latin roots: fili for child, infans for baby, foetus for unborn baby and lupus for wolf. Knowing these roots makes it easier to understand and remember the exact meanings of long words ending in cide. Final Answer: The correct one-word substitute for Killing of one's own child is Filicide.

Question 14

In the following question, choose the one-word substitute for the given phrase: A lover of work.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a one-word substitution question where the candidate must select a single term that captures the meaning of the given descriptive phrase. The phrase A lover of work refers to someone who likes working very much and may even be enthusiastic about staying busy with tasks. Understanding the meanings of different phile words helps in answering such questions correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: - Phrase: A lover of work. - Options: Oenophile, Technophile, Romanophile, Ergophile. - All the options end with phile, a suffix that indicates a lover of or enthusiast for something. - We need the option whose prefix relates to work. Concept / Approach: The suffix phile comes from Greek and means lover of. The prefix ergo or ergon relates to work. Therefore, Ergophile means a person who loves work or is extremely fond of working. Oeno refers to wine, techno to technology, and Romano to Rome, so the other options relate to lovers of wine, lovers of technology and lovers of Rome respectively. Matching the correct prefix with the idea of work leads straight to Ergophile. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that phile means lover of, so each option names a person with a strong liking for something.Step 2: Connect the phrase lover of work with the Greek root ergo, which refers to work or labour.Step 3: Note that Ergophile combines ergo with phile and therefore literally means lover of work.Step 4: Understand that Oenophile refers to a lover of wine, not a lover of work.Step 5: Technophile refers to someone who loves technology, and Romanophile to someone who admires Rome or Roman culture.Step 6: Thus, Ergophile is the only option that correctly matches the phrase A lover of work. Verification / Alternative check: Reference works in English vocabulary and word formation confirm that erg is used in words related to work, such as ergonomics, the science of designing workplaces for efficiency and safety. Similarly, the term workaholic is sometimes used informally for a person who cannot stop working, but the precise one-word substitute based on Greek roots and the suffix phile is Ergophile. None of the other options share this root, so there is no ambiguity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Oenophile means a lover of wine or someone interested in wine appreciation. - Technophile means a person who loves or is very enthusiastic about technology and gadgets. - Romanophile is someone who admires Rome, Roman culture or things related to Rome. Common Pitfalls: Learners may be tempted to guess based on the overall look of the word instead of understanding its parts. They may also confuse Ergophile with similar sounding words if they have not studied roots systematically. A useful strategy is to break down such words into prefix and suffix and connect them with known English words, such as ergonomics for work related design and audiophile for lover of high quality sound. This approach makes it easier to decode unfamiliar words in exams. Final Answer: The correct one-word substitute for A lover of work is Ergophile.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This spelling question asks the candidate to identify the incorrectly spelt word from a list of four. Correct spelling is important both in exams and in real life communication, and commonly tested words often relate to everyday usage. The goal is to spot the extra or missing letters and match each word with its standard dictionary form. Given Data / Assumptions: - Words given: Impression, Personnal, Terrorism, Illiterate. - Three of these are correctly spelt and one is incorrect. - We must choose the incorrectly spelt word as the answer. - The context is general English vocabulary. Concept / Approach: To answer spelling questions, we compare each word with its known correct form or break it into familiar parts. Impression, Terrorism and Illiterate are well known words that appear frequently in reading materials. The word Personnal appears suspicious because the usual spelling of the related adjective is Personal with a single n in the middle. The double n makes it incorrect as a common English word in this context, since Personnel is a different word meaning staff, and the given spelling does not match that either. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check Impression. The word impression is correctly spelt with im plus pression and is commonly used to mean an effect on mind or senses.Step 2: Examine Personnal. The standard adjective meaning relating to a person or private matters is personal, with one n after the r.Step 3: Note that Personnel, meaning staff or employees, is spelled with two n letters but also ends with nel, not nal. The given form Personnal does not match either correct word.Step 4: Terrorism is a correctly spelt word referring to the use of terror or violence for political ends.Step 5: Illiterate is correctly spelt and refers to someone who cannot read or write.Step 6: Therefore, Personnal is the incorrectly spelt word. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify using known correct spellings. Dictionaries list personal for private or individual, and personnel for staff. There is no standard word Personnal with that exact spelling in general English usage. The other words appear exactly as they are used in books and newspapers. This confirms that the error lies in the extra n in Personnal combined with the nal ending. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Impression is a correctly spelt noun often used in phrases like good impression or first impression. - Terrorism is spelled with double r and ism and is used widely in news reports and academic articles. - Illiterate is correctly spelt with double l and means unable to read or write. Common Pitfalls: Spelling questions can be tricky when two similar correct words exist, such as personal and personnel. Candidates might confuse the patterns and feel uncertain. A good method is to remember that personal has one n and refers to private matters, while personnel has double n and refers to staff. When a mixed or hybrid spelling like Personnal appears, it should signal that something is wrong. Regular reading helps to store visual memory of correct word forms, which is more reliable than relying only on pronunciation. Final Answer: The incorrectly spelt word in the list is Personnal.

Question 16

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

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This spelling question requires you to find the incorrectly spelt word among four options. Spellings of longer words with Latin or French origins are often tested because they can be confusing. Accurate spelling is essential for formal writing, and developing an eye for common patterns helps greatly in examinations. Given Data / Assumptions: - Words given: Stupefaction, Preferential, Surveillence, Detrimental. - Exactly one of these words is incorrectly spelt. - We must select the incorrect spelling as the answer. - The words come from typical academic or formal vocabulary. Concept / Approach: The correct spelling of the word meaning close observation, especially of a person or place, is surveillance. The given option Surveillence replaces the a with an e near the end, which makes it incorrect. The other words match their standard dictionary forms. Stupefaction, Preferential and Detrimental are commonly seen in academic texts and news articles with the spellings shown in the options. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check Stupefaction. This is correctly spelt and refers to a state of being stupefied or astonished.Step 2: Examine Preferential. It is correctly spelt and describes treatment that gives preference to someone or something.Step 3: Look at Surveillence. The standard English word is surveillance, with the ending ance, not ence.Step 4: Detrimental is correctly spelt and means harmful or damaging.Step 5: Since Surveillence differs from the correct form surveillance, it is the incorrectly spelt word. Verification / Alternative check: A quick check with known similar words helps. Many English nouns that refer to an action or process end with ance, such as performance, guidance and acceptance. Surveillance follows this pattern. The variant with ence is not used for this particular word. The other words, Stupefaction, Preferential and Detrimental, all agree with their known dictionary spellings, confirming that they are correct and that the error is confined to Surveillence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Stupefaction is correctly spelt and is derived from stupefy. - Preferential is correct and commonly seen in phrases like preferential treatment. - Detrimental is correct and used widely to describe harmful effects. Common Pitfalls: Words borrowed from French, such as surveillance, often retain spellings that can confuse learners, especially the pattern of vowels and double consonants. It is easy to misplace a or e when writing quickly. To reduce errors, it helps to note common suffix patterns like ance versus ence for specific words and to practice writing them. Visual memory from regular reading is also a strong support, since the correct forms appear repeatedly in quality texts. Final Answer: The incorrectly spelt word in the list is Surveillence.

Question 17

The question below consists of four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S. Select the option that gives the most logical order to form a coherent paragraph about knowledge, education and power.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This para jumble question deals with the relationship between knowledge, education and power. The four sentences mention an old saying about knowledge, describe education as an instrument, and explain how people in power have tried to control education. To arrange them in a coherent paragraph, we need to identify the introductory proverb, the explanation of its meaning, and the consequent actions of those who hold power. Given Data / Assumptions: - Sentence S: It is an old saying that knowledge is power. - Sentence R: Education is an instrument which imparts knowledge and therefore, indirectly controls power. - Sentence Q: Therefore, ever since the dawn of civilization, persons in power have always tried to supervise or control education. - Sentence P: It has been the handmaid of the ruling class. - We must find the order that creates a smooth and logical flow of ideas. Concept / Approach: A well formed paragraph typically begins with a general statement or proverb, followed by explanation and logical consequences. Here, the proverb knowledge is power introduces the basic idea that whoever controls knowledge also controls power. The next sentence should connect knowledge to education. Then we move on to describe how rulers, aware of this link, have tried to control education, and finally we sum up education's role in serving the ruling class. This reasoning suggests an order that begins with S, followed by R, Q and P. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Sentence S states the proverb It is an old saying that knowledge is power. This is clearly an introductory line.Step 2: Sentence R then explains how this proverb connects to education by describing education as an instrument that imparts knowledge and thus indirectly controls power.Step 3: Sentence Q begins with the connector Therefore, which indicates a conclusion or result from the previous idea. It explains that persons in power have always tried to supervise or control education for this reason.Step 4: Sentence P continues the thought by saying It has been the handmaid of the ruling class. The word It refers back to education, and handmaid suggests a servant role, neatly summarising education's relationship to power.Step 5: Arranging the sentences as S R Q P gives a clear progression from proverb to explanation to consequence and concluding statement. Verification / Alternative check: If we try any other order, the paragraph loses clarity. For example, starting with P gives It has been the handmaid of the ruling class without first defining what It is, which confuses the reader. Beginning with R leaves the proverb unintroduced and makes the Therefore in Q seem unsupported. Only S provides a natural opening, R explains the connection, Q shows its effect on rulers' behaviour, and P summarises the overall result. This chain is logically consistent and stylistically sound. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - SQPR places Q immediately after S, skipping the important link that education is the instrument of knowledge, so the Therefore in Q appears weak. - PRQS starts with P, which refers to It without prior reference, and disrupts the logical development of the idea. - PSQR begins with P and then moves to S, which is a proverb, creating an unnatural order where the explanation comes before the saying. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes focus only on local word links, such as pronouns or repeated phrases, and forget to look for global structure, including introductions, explainers and conclusions. Another pitfall is ignoring connectors like Therefore that signal logical relationships. For para jumble questions, it helps to identify which sentence can stand alone as an opening, which ones depend on previous lines, and which sentence feels like a closing comment. This method leads systematically to the correct order. Final Answer: The most logical and coherent order of the sentences is SRQP, so the correct option is the sequence SRQP.

Question 18

Rearrange the labelled sentences S, Q, R and P to form the most coherent paragraph about rural and urban population in India.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Paragraph arrangement questions test the ability to understand the logical development of ideas and to identify which sentence should come first, which should support it, and which sentences provide contrast or conclusion. In this question, the four labelled sentences describe the relationship between rural and urban population in India, rural to urban migration, and the advantages and disadvantages of urban life. The task is to find the order that produces a coherent and smoothly flowing paragraph. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentences talk about India, rural villages, urban population, migration, and the risks of urban life. Sentence Q states that gains of being a unit of the urban population are less than the disadvantages and risks in urban life. Sentence P refers to a situation that happens despite something mentioned earlier, and talks about rampant migration of rural families to urban centres. Sentence R states that rural population still dominates urban population in terms of absolute numbers. Sentence S states that India is a country of villages. Concept / Approach: The key idea is to locate the logical starting sentence, then see which sentence naturally follows when we read the ideas as a short paragraph. Words such as however, therefore, despite, this and still are strong clues because they refer back to a previous statement or contrast with it. We must build a chain where each sentence connects smoothly to the next without leaving any pronoun or reference hanging without a clear noun or idea. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Look for a general sentence that can introduce the topic. Sentence Q talks about the gains and disadvantages of urban life, which can open a discussion about why people still migrate to cities. Step 2: After Q states that urban life has more disadvantages and risks, it makes sense that P follows and begins with the phrase this is despite the fact, which refers back to the disadvantages mentioned in Q, and then mentions rampant migration of rural families to urban centres. Step 3: Once the migration to cities is mentioned, R can logically follow by saying that rural population still dominates urban population in numbers, which is a numerical conclusion drawn from the previous ideas. Step 4: S, which states that India is a country of villages, can naturally conclude the paragraph by summarising the idea that in spite of migration, India continues to be predominantly rural. Step 5: Check each given option and match it against the discovered order. The sequence QPRS matches our reasoning. Verification / Alternative check: If we try to start with S or R, we get a valid fact but there is no clear reference for the phrase this is despite the fact in sentence P, because it could either refer to rural dominance or something else. When Q is placed first, P clearly refers to the disadvantages mentioned in Q, which strengthens the coherence. Trying combinations like RPQS or SRQP either ends with a weak conclusion or leaves the pronoun this in P without a clear logical anchor. The sequence QPRS gives a smooth flow from causes and conditions to observation and final conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (QRSP) puts S at the end but separates R and P, breaking the this is despite link, so the contrast is not correctly expressed. Option B (RPQS) ends with S as a sentence that does not summarise the previous idea in a natural way and misplaces the contrast in P. Option C (SRQP) starts correctly with S and R but then places Q and P in a way that gives an awkward and less logical flow. Option E (PSRQ) cannot be correct because P begins with this is despite the fact and must refer to an earlier sentence, not introduce the paragraph. Common Pitfalls: Students often select the option that starts with a sentence about India or villages without checking whether the pronouns and contrast words such as this or despite have a logical reference. Another common mistake is to assume that numerical statements like rural population still dominates must always come at the beginning instead of checking how they support or conclude the discussion. Careful reading of linking phrases is essential in paragraph arrangement questions. Final Answer: The most logical and coherent order of the sentences is QPRS, so option D is correct.

Question 19

Convert the sentence about residents celebrating Diwali from active voice to passive voice and select the correct passive form.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Voice conversion questions test the understanding of how to change a sentence from active voice to passive voice without changing its basic meaning or tense. Here, the original sentence states that the residents celebrated Diwali. We need to convert this simple past tense active sentence into an appropriate passive structure while preserving the original time reference and focus. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject in the active sentence is the residents. The verb phrase is celebrated. The object is Diwali. The tense is simple past. The passive form must keep simple past and may keep the doer by using the preposition by. Concept / Approach: In English, to change from active to passive, the object of the active sentence becomes the subject of the passive sentence, the main verb is converted to a suitable form of be plus past participle, and the original subject is introduced using by if it is still needed. For a simple past tense sentence like the residents celebrated Diwali, the passive structure is subject (Diwali) plus was or were plus past participle (celebrated) plus by phrase with the original subject. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the subject, verb and object in the active sentence. Subject is the residents, verb is celebrated, object is Diwali. Step 2: Move the object Diwali to the subject position in the passive sentence. Step 3: Convert the main verb celebrated into the passive form using be plus past participle. For simple past and a singular subject, we use was celebrated. Step 4: Add the original subject the residents after the verb in a by phrase, giving by the residents. Step 5: Put all parts together to form Diwali was celebrated by the residents. Verification / Alternative check: Check that the tense remains simple past in the passive sentence. The word was indicates past tense, and celebrated remains the past participle. Check that the agent the residents is correctly introduced by the preposition by, which is standard in passive constructions. Read both sentences and confirm that both report the same event, only with the focus shifted from the residents to the festival Diwali. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A uses a strange nominal form did celebration and does not follow standard passive voice rules. Option B uses present perfect tense has been celebrated, which changes the time reference from simple past to present perfect. Option D uses present continuous passive is being celebrated, which again changes the tense and implies that the celebration is happening now. Option E has an unnecessary noun phrase celebration of Diwali was done, which is wordy and less natural than a simple passive sentence. Common Pitfalls: Learners often change not only the voice but also the tense, which alters the time relationship of the action. Another frequent mistake is to keep both the original subject and object in incorrect positions or to create redundant expressions such as did celebration. Always identify tense clearly and then apply the correct be plus past participle form, while moving the object to the subject position. Final Answer: The correct passive voice form is Diwali was celebrated by the residents.

Question 20

Change the sentence where a foreman tells his workers that he cannot pay them higher wages into indirect speech and select the correct reported form.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Direct and indirect speech questions assess the ability to change a quoted sentence into reported form while maintaining sense, tense, and pronoun reference. Here, a foreman speaks to his workers and says that he cannot pay them higher wages. We must convert this direct speech into indirect speech in a grammatically correct and meaning preserving way. Given Data / Assumptions: The reporting verb is said to, with the object his workers. The reported clause is I cannot pay you higher wages. The speaker is the foreman, and the listeners are the workers. The sentence is a statement, not a question or command. There is no time marker forcing present tense; usual backshift rules apply. Concept / Approach: When we change a present tense statement in direct speech to indirect speech with a past reporting verb such as said or told, we usually backshift the tense. Present forms move to past forms, and modal verbs like can change to could. Pronouns also change according to the speaker and listener. The reporting verb said to is normally changed to told when there is an object, because told must have a listener as its object in correct English usage. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Change said to into told because the foreman is speaking to his workers, so he told his workers is more appropriate. Step 2: Remove the quotation marks and introduce the reported clause with that, giving told his workers that. Step 3: Change the first person pronoun I into he because in the reported form we refer to the foreman in third person. Step 4: Backshift the modal verb can into could because the reporting verb is in past tense. Step 5: Change the second person pronoun you into them so that the sentence correctly refers to the workers as the recipients of the action. Step 6: Combine the parts to form the sentence The foreman told his workers that he could not pay them higher wages. Verification / Alternative check: Check that the new sentence is a complete statement with subject, verb and object correctly placed. Confirm that all tense changes follow standard backshift rules and that there is no unnecessary change in time or meaning. Read the original and the reported sentence side by side and ensure they convey the same message from a narrative perspective. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A keeps cannot instead of could not and therefore fails to apply the correct backshift of can to could. Option C uses they could not be paid higher wages, which is grammatically possible but shifts the focus from the foreman paying them to their being paid, which is a subtle but real change in structure. Option D is wrong because forbid his workers to pay higher wages completely changes the meaning, as it now refers to the workers paying higher wages to others. Option E uses was not paying, which indicates an ongoing action and does not accurately reflect the general inability expressed by cannot in the original sentence. Common Pitfalls: Many learners forget to change said to to told when an object is present, or they change pronouns inconsistently, leaving you unchanged even though the subject has changed. Another error is to mix up tense backshift, using can instead of could or changing it into a continuous or perfect form without justification. Careful attention to tense and pronoun reference avoids these problems. Final Answer: The correct indirect speech form is The foreman told his workers that he could not pay them higher wages.

English Questions