Question 1

In the following question, out of the given four alternatives, select the one that is opposite in meaning (antonym) to the word “Tolerate”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question asks you to identify the antonym, or opposite in meaning, of the word “tolerate”. Antonyms are a very common area in competitive exams, and understanding them accurately helps you interpret attitudes and opinions in English passages, especially where people talk about what they accept or reject. Given Data / Assumptions: The target word is “tolerate”. Four options are provided: Accept, Bear, Permit, Disapprove. You must choose the word that contrasts most clearly with “tolerate”. Standard dictionary meanings and neutral context are assumed. Concept / Approach: “Tolerate” means to allow something to exist or happen without interference, even if you do not like it. It implies putting up with something, bearing it, or permitting it. Therefore, the opposite idea is to express disapproval or refusal, to not allow or accept that thing. Among the given options, “Disapprove” best expresses a clear negative reaction instead of silent acceptance. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the meaning of “tolerate”: to endure, to put up with, to allow without protest.Option A – “Accept”: often means to receive willingly or agree to; this is actually close in meaning to tolerate, not opposite.Option B – “Bear”: to endure or tolerate something; again a near synonym of tolerate.Option C – “Permit”: to allow to happen; also very similar to tolerate.Option D – “Disapprove”: to have a negative opinion of something and not agree with it; this goes against the idea of tolerant acceptance.Because the antonym must oppose the idea of allowing or putting up with something, “Disapprove” is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Consider example sentences: “The teacher will not tolerate cheating in the exam.” If we say the opposite, it would be, “The teacher will disapprove of any cheating and act against it.” Here, “tolerate” versus “disapprove” clearly show opposite attitudes towards the same behaviour. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Accept” suggests welcoming or agreeing to something, so it is actually stronger in approval than merely tolerating. “Bear” is commonly used in phrases like “I cannot bear this noise”, which is very close to “I cannot tolerate this noise”. “Permit” is used in sentences like “Smoking is not permitted here”, again nearly the same as “not tolerated here”. None of these words express opposition; they are either similar or compatible with “tolerate”. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think “accept” is opposite to “tolerate” because tolerance may involve silent dislike, but in vocabulary questions the focus is on basic dictionary meanings. All of “accept”, “bear” and “permit” involve allowing or enduring something, so they are not true opposites. The only option that clearly shows refusal or negative judgement is “disapprove”. Final Answer: The antonym of “Tolerate” is Disapprove.

Question 2

In the following question, out of the given four alternatives, select the one that is opposite in meaning (antonym) to the word “Distress”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This antonym question checks your understanding of emotional vocabulary in English. The word “distress” is very common in news reports, psychology articles and everyday conversation when describing suffering, mental pain or extreme worry. Identifying its opposite helps you interpret whether a situation is positive or negative in reading comprehension passages. Given Data / Assumptions: The target word is “Distress”. Given options are: Concern, Pleasure, Anxiety, Discomfort. Only one option should express the opposite emotional state. Standard English meanings are assumed. Concept / Approach: “Distress” means severe pain, sorrow, suffering, or extreme anxiety. It describes a strongly negative emotional or physical state. The opposite must therefore express a clearly positive feeling such as happiness, delight or comfort. Among the given options, “Pleasure” refers to a feeling of happiness, enjoyment or satisfaction, which is directly opposed to distress. The other options refer to milder or related forms of worry and discomfort, not opposites. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the meaning of “distress”: extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain.Option A – “Concern”: a feeling of worry or care; this is somewhat similar to distress, though usually less intense.Option B – “Pleasure”: a feeling of happiness, satisfaction, or enjoyment; a clear positive emotion.Option C – “Anxiety”: nervousness and worry; strongly related to mental distress.Option D – “Discomfort”: mild physical or mental uneasiness; again in the same negative direction, though weaker.The only option that stands on the positive side of the emotional scale is “Pleasure”, so it is the correct antonym. Verification / Alternative check: Use the words in opposite sentences: “The news of his success was a great pleasure to his parents” versus “The news of his failure caused great distress to his parents.” The emotional effect is completely reversed. We can clearly see that “distress” and “pleasure” describe opposite emotional reactions to events. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Concern”, “anxiety” and “discomfort” all describe forms of negative feeling. They differ in intensity, but they do not represent a positive or happy state. Because an antonym must reverse the meaning, and not just be less strong, these options cannot be correct. They are closer to synonyms of “distress” than opposites. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students confuse “concern” with a caring attitude and treat it as positive, but in vocabulary tests it usually refers to a worried feeling. Similarly, “discomfort” may sound milder, but it is still negative. When looking for an antonym of a strongly negative word like “distress”, always look for a clearly positive word like “pleasure” rather than a weaker negative word. Final Answer: The antonym of “Distress” is Pleasure.

Question 3

In the following question, out of the given four alternatives, select the one that is opposite in meaning (antonym) to the word “Negotiate”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of the verb “negotiate”, a word widely used in business, diplomacy and everyday problem-solving. To negotiate is to discuss something in order to reach an agreement or compromise. The antonym will express the idea of not entering into such discussions or refusing to change one's position. Given Data / Assumptions: The target word is “Negotiate”. Options are: Adjust, Consult, Debate, Remain. Exactly one option should be opposite in meaning. We assume a general context of bargaining or discussions. Concept / Approach: “Negotiate” means to discuss terms and conditions with another party in order to reach an agreement. It implies movement, flexibility and interaction. Words like “adjust”, “consult” and “debate” all involve some kind of discussion or change and are therefore close in idea to “negotiate”. An antonym should instead suggest staying firm or unchanged, not engaging in bargaining. The word “remain” carries the idea of staying as you are, without changing or entering into new arrangements. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the meaning of “negotiate”: to talk and bargain to reach an agreement.Option A – “Adjust”: to change or modify; often what happens during negotiation, so this is related, not opposite.Option B – “Consult”: to discuss or seek advice; again linked to communication and discussion.Option C – “Debate”: to argue formally or discuss opposing views; this is also a communication activity.Option D – “Remain”: to stay in the same state or position; suggests no change, no movement, and by extension, no negotiation.Therefore, in the context of choosing an opposite, “Remain” is the best answer. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine a labour dispute: “The management refused to negotiate with the workers.” Here “refused to negotiate” means they decided to remain firm and not enter any discussions. If we describe their behaviour, we could say: “The management chose to remain firm on their decision and did not negotiate.” This shows the contrast between negotiating and simply remaining as you are. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Adjust” can be a result of negotiation because both sides adjust their demands. “Consult” is another form of discussion or seeking advice, which supports negotiation rather than oppose it. “Debate” also consists of structured discussion. None of these words conflict with the idea of negotiating; instead, they are compatible or related activities. Common Pitfalls: In antonym questions, students sometimes choose a word that is simply not a synonym, rather than one that truly represents an opposite concept. Always ask: does this word imply the reverse action or attitude? For “negotiating”, the opposite is refusing to change or refusing to discuss, which is closest to the idea of “remaining” in one position. Final Answer: The antonym of “Negotiate” (in the sense of actively discussing terms) is best expressed by Remain (remaining firm without entering negotiations).

Question 4

In the following question, out of the given four alternatives, select the one which best expresses the meaning of the word “Mandatory”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question tests your understanding of the word “mandatory”, which is very common in official notices, exam instructions, and legal documents. Knowing its meaning helps you understand whether a particular action is compulsory or can be skipped. Given Data / Assumptions: The target word is “Mandatory”. Options are: Optional, Voluntary, Essential, Unnecessary. You must choose the synonym, i.e., the word closest in meaning. We assume its usual administrative or legal context: rules, requirements, etc. Concept / Approach: “Mandatory” means legally or officially required; compulsory; something that must be done. A close synonym needs to convey the idea of necessity or obligation, not choice. Among the given options, “Essential” means absolutely necessary and closely matches this sense of something that cannot be omitted. The other options express ideas of choice or lack of necessity, which are opposite to “mandatory”. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the meaning: “mandatory” = required by rule or law; not optional.Option A – “Optional”: means something you can choose to do or skip; this is the opposite of mandatory.Option B – “Voluntary”: something done by choice, without being forced; also opposite to compulsory.Option C – “Essential”: means absolutely necessary or extremely important; very close to a mandatory requirement.Option D – “Unnecessary”: not needed; again the opposite of essential or compulsory.Therefore, “Essential” is the correct synonym for “Mandatory”. Verification / Alternative check: Consider an exam instruction: “It is mandatory to carry your admit card.” We can rephrase it as: “It is essential to carry your admit card.” In both cases, the idea is that you cannot be allowed in without it. Replacing “mandatory” with “optional” or “voluntary” would completely change the meaning and give the wrong impression that you have a choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Optional” and “Voluntary” both suggest freedom of choice, which contradicts the idea of being compelled by rules. “Unnecessary” is even stronger in the opposite direction; it says something is not needed at all. None of these capture the sense of an unavoidable requirement that “mandatory” expresses, while “Essential” matches it closely. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse “mandatory” and “voluntary” in everyday talk, especially when reading guidelines quickly. In exam questions, always slow down and focus on the key contrast: mandatory = must do; voluntary = choose to do. If you remember that, then “Essential” becomes the obvious synonym among the options. Final Answer: The word that best expresses the meaning of “Mandatory” is Essential.

Question 5

In the following question, out of the given four alternatives, select the one which best expresses the meaning of the word “Articulate” (used for a person who speaks clearly and effectively).

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This synonym question focuses on the word “articulate”, which is widely used to describe people who can express their ideas clearly and effectively in speech or writing. Recognising this word helps you in reading comprehension, personality descriptions, and interview-related topics. Given Data / Assumptions: The target word is “Articulate”. Options: Distinct, Unclear, Disconnect, Secret. You must choose the option closest in meaning. We assume “articulate” here is used to describe speech or expression. Concept / Approach: As an adjective, “articulate” describes someone who can express thoughts and feelings clearly and effectively. It can also refer to speech that is clear and easily understood. A synonym must therefore point towards clarity. The word “distinct” means clear, easily distinguishable or clearly perceptible, which aligns well with the idea of articulate speech. The other options either describe the opposite or are unrelated. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the meaning of “articulate”: clear and effective in speech or expression.Option A – “Distinct”: clear, noticeable, easily heard or seen; fits the idea of clarity of speech.Option B – “Unclear”: the direct opposite of clear; this is an antonym, not a synonym.Option C – “Disconnect”: usually a verb or noun about breaking a connection; not related to clarity of speech.Option D – “Secret”: something hidden or not revealed; unrelated to how clearly someone speaks.Hence, “Distinct” is the best synonym for “Articulate” in this context. Verification / Alternative check: Use both words in similar sentences: “She is an articulate speaker” means she speaks clearly and effectively. “She is a distinct speaker” is not as common in daily use, but we can say “Her voice is distinct and easy to follow”, which conveys clarity. The core idea of easy understanding is present in both and shows why “distinct” is the closest among the given options. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Unclear” is almost the opposite of “articulate”; an unclear speaker is hard to understand. “Disconnect” refers to separation of things, not clarity. “Secret” refers to hidden information and has no connection with clarity of speech. These three options therefore do not share the core meaning of “articulate”. Common Pitfalls: Examinees sometimes confuse “articulate” with “intelligent” or “secretive”, but it does not directly mean either of these. A person may be intelligent but not articulate, and an articulate person might reveal information rather than hide it. The key idea is clear expression, which you should link mentally with words like “distinct” and “clear”. Final Answer: The word that best expresses the meaning of “Articulate” in this context is Distinct.

Question 6

In the following question, out of the given four alternatives, select the one which best expresses the meaning of the word “Plight”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question tests your understanding of the noun “plight”, a word frequently used in news articles, essays and social issues discussions. It often appears in phrases like “the plight of farmers” or “the plight of refugees”. Recognising its meaning helps you grasp the seriousness of the situation being described. Given Data / Assumptions: The target word is “Plight”. Options are: Blessing, Aid, Relief, Difficulty. You must select the closest synonym. We assume standard modern usage, where “plight” refers to a difficult situation. Concept / Approach: “Plight” means a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation. It focuses on hardship rather than comfort or help. A synonym must therefore express the idea of trouble, hardship or difficulty. Among the options, “Difficulty” directly refers to a problematic or challenging situation, matching the sense of “plight”. The other options refer to help, comfort or positive outcomes, which are the opposite of a plight. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the typical phrase: “the plight of the poor” clearly means “the difficult situation of the poor”.Option A – “Blessing”: something good or beneficial; opposite direction of meaning.Option B – “Aid”: help or assistance; usually provided in response to someone's plight.Option C – “Relief”: reduction of pain or distress; often a response to difficulty, not the difficulty itself.Option D – “Difficulty”: a state of hardship or trouble; directly aligned with the meaning of plight.Therefore, “Difficulty” is the correct synonym. Verification / Alternative check: Use both words in the same sentence: “We must do more to improve the plight of homeless children” can be rewritten as “We must do more to reduce the difficulty faced by homeless children.” The sense remains the same: their situation is hard and needs improvement. Replacing “plight” with “blessing” or “aid” would reverse or change the meaning entirely. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Blessing” suggests a fortunate or beneficial thing, clearly opposite to hardship. “Aid” and “Relief” are things that help reduce a plight but are not themselves negative states. They usually appear together with “plight” in articles, as in “aid for the plight of victims”, showing that they are separate concepts. Common Pitfalls: Because “plight” often appears alongside words like “aid” and “relief” in news reports, some candidates mistakenly think they are synonyms. Remember that “plight” is the problem or hardship, and “aid” or “relief” are responses to that problem. When faced with such options, always separate “cause” (difficulty) from “solution” (aid, relief). Final Answer: The word that best expresses the meaning of “Plight” is Difficulty.

Question 7

In the following question, the sentence is given with a blank to be filled in with an appropriate word. Select the correct alternative out of the four and indicate it by selecting the appropriate option: Raman has come up ______ a problem that he wa…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of common phrasal verbs in English, specifically “come up with”. Phrasal verbs are combinations of verbs and prepositions or adverbs that carry specific meanings. Examinations often test whether you can choose the correct preposition to form a natural, idiomatic expression. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence is: “Raman has come up ______ a problem that he wants to discuss.” We must fill the blank with the correct preposition. The intended meaning (after minimal repair) is that Raman has brought up or proposed a problem. Options: for, with, of, into. Concept / Approach: There are two relevant patterns: “come up against a problem” (to face a problem) and “come up with an idea/problem” (to think of, mention, or propose something). In this sentence, the most natural and exam-friendly reading is “come up with a problem” meaning he has brought a particular problem to notice or thought of a problem to work on. The verb-preposition combination “come up with” is a well-established phrasal verb in English. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the intended meaning: Raman has produced or mentioned a problem, possibly for discussion or solution.Recall the phrasal verb: “come up with something” = to think of or produce an idea, plan, excuse, problem etc.Check “come up for a problem”: incorrect; “come up for” is used in phrases like “come up for review”.Check “come up of a problem”: ungrammatical; “of” does not form a phrasal verb here.Check “come up into a problem”: also incorrect; “into” is not used in this pattern.Check “come up with a problem”: correct and idiomatic if we mean he has brought forward a problem. Verification / Alternative check: Insert the chosen option: “Raman has come up with a problem that he wants to discuss.” This sounds natural and clearly means Raman has thought of or presented a problem for discussion, which is appropriate in a classroom, office, or technical setting. None of the other prepositions produce a standard English expression. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “For” typically links purpose, as in “come up for renewal”, but “come up for a problem” has no accepted meaning. “Of” and “into” do not form phrasal verbs with “come up” in this sense, and “come up of a problem” or “come up into a problem” are grammatically wrong. Only “with” completes the recognized phrasal verb “come up with”. Common Pitfalls: Learners often remember that “come up” is used with different prepositions (come up against, come up with, come up for), and they mix them up. To avoid confusion, link each pattern to a clear meaning: “come up with” = produce or suggest; “come up against” = face or encounter a difficulty; “come up for” = be scheduled for discussion or renewal. Final Answer: The correct preposition is with, forming the phrasal verb “come up with a problem”.

Question 8

In the following question, the sentence is given with a blank to be filled in with an appropriate word. Select the correct alternative out of the four and indicate it by selecting the appropriate option: More than thirty years have now passed ______…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This preposition question checks whether you can correctly express the idea of time elapsed from a specific event in the past up to the present. English frequently uses the word “since” with present perfect tense to mark the starting point of such a time period. Given Data / Assumptions: The sentence reads: “More than thirty years have now passed ______ I had my first flight.” The verb phrase “have now passed” is in the present perfect tense. We must fill the blank with a time connector. Options: since, after, while, when. Concept / Approach: The present perfect (“have passed”) is often used with “since + past time clause” to indicate time duration from a point in the past until now. The structure “have passed since I had my first flight” is standard English. Using “after”, “while”, or “when” in this position would either require a different verb form or change the meaning of the sentence. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the pattern: “More than thirty years have now passed … I had my first flight.”We want to say “from the time I had my first flight until now”.The correct connector for this meaning with present perfect is “since”.Check “after”: “have passed after I had my first flight” is unidiomatic; we would say “thirty years after I had my first flight, I did X”, not “have passed after”.Check “while”: used for something happening at the same time; “while I had my first flight” does not fit.Check “when”: “have passed when I had my first flight” is grammatically incorrect in this structure.So, “since” is the correct choice. Verification / Alternative check: Insert the chosen word: “More than thirty years have now passed since I had my first flight.” This is exactly how native speakers describe the time elapsed between a past event and now. For example: “Ten years have passed since I last visited my school.” The pattern “have passed since + past clause” is standard and well-formed. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “After” typically leads to a clause or phrase describing what happens next, not the entire time period until now. “While” describes two actions happening at the same time, which is not the idea here. “When” introduces a point in time but does not fit grammatically with “have passed” in this position; we would need a different structure like “I remember when I had my first flight.” Thus, only “since” correctly expresses “from that time until now”. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse “since” and “after” because both refer to time following an event. However, “since” works with present perfect to measure duration up to the present, whereas “after” is used to sequence events in the past or future. Recognising this pattern will help you in many tense and preposition questions. Final Answer: The correct word to fill the blank is since.

Question 9

In the following question, some part of the sentence may have errors. Find out which part of the sentence has an error and select the appropriate option. If the sentence is free from error, select “No Error”. Akshay Kumar being a (1) / good actor he…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is an error-spotting question that tests your understanding of sentence structure and correct use of participial phrases. The sentence tries to describe Akshay Kumar's quality as a good actor and then state that he was presented with the National Award. The problem lies in how these ideas are joined. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (1): “Akshay Kumar being a”. Part (2): “good actor he is”. Part (3): “presented with the National Award.” Part (4): “No Error”. We assume the intended correct sentence should be something like “Akshay Kumar, being a good actor, was presented with the National Award.” Concept / Approach: There are two main ideas: (a) he is a good actor, and (b) he was presented with the National Award. When we start a sentence with “being a…”, we normally follow it with the main clause containing a finite verb like “was”. The current version “good actor he is presented with” is grammatically incorrect and confusing. The subject “Akshay Kumar” should be followed by a participial phrase and then a finite verb, but here the finite verb “was” is missing and the phrase “he is” is wrongly inserted. Step-by-Step Solution: Read Part (1): “Akshay Kumar being a” – acceptable as the start of a participial phrase (“being a good actor”).Read Part (2): “good actor he is” – this is where the structure breaks; we would expect either “a good actor, was” or “the good actor he is, he was”.Read Part (3): “presented with the National Award.” – we still need a finite verb like “was” before “presented”.Thus, the error is concentrated in Part (2), where the phrase “good actor he is” is incorrect in this position.A corrected version: “Akshay Kumar, being a good actor, was presented with the National Award.” Verification / Alternative check: Divide the corrected sentence: subject = “Akshay Kumar”, participial phrase = “being a good actor”, main verb = “was presented”. This is a standard pattern in English. In the original, however, “good actor he is presented” creates confusion because “he is” seems like a second subject-verb pair that never completes properly, and “presented” remains without the auxiliary “was”. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (1) alone (“Akshay Kumar being a”) is not wrong because we can complete it as “Akshay Kumar, being a good actor, …”. Part (3) contains the past participle “presented” which is fine if preceded by “was”. The main structural fault lies where “good actor he is” has been inserted, so Option “2” correctly identifies the erroneous part. “No Error (4)” cannot be chosen because we clearly see a problem in the construction. Common Pitfalls: Many students focus only on tenses and ignore sentence structure. Here, the tense is less of an issue than the missing auxiliary verb and the confused combination of “being a…” with “he is”. When you see “being”, always check whether it is part of a participial phrase followed correctly by a main clause with a finite verb. Final Answer: The grammatical error is in part 2 of the sentence.

Question 10

In the following question, some part of the sentence may have errors. Find out which part of the sentence has an error and select the appropriate option. If the sentence is free from error, select “No Error”. These five sisters (1) / care for one ot…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error-spotting question focuses on the correct use of reciprocal pronouns in English. When talking about two or more people who act towards each other, we typically use “each other” or “one another”, not “one other”. The sentence describes five sisters and how they care for each other, so we must choose the right reciprocal expression. Given Data / Assumptions: Part (1): “These five sisters”. Part (2): “care for one other”. Part (3): “like mothers.” Part (4): “No Error”. The intended meaning is that the sisters care for each other in a very loving way, like mothers. Concept / Approach: English uses “each other” and “one another” as reciprocal pronouns. “Each other” is typically used for two people, and “one another” is often used for more than two, although in modern usage the distinction is not always strict. The form “one other” without “an” does not function as a correct reciprocal pronoun; it simply means “a different one” in other contexts. Here, because the subject is “five sisters”, the correct phrase should be “care for one another” or “care for each other”. Step-by-Step Solution: Read Part (1): “These five sisters” – correct subject and clear that more than two people are involved.Read Part (2): “care for one other” – this sounds wrong; we expect “each other” or “one another”.Read Part (3): “like mothers.” – correct simile; suggests they care very deeply.The error is the phrase “one other” in Part (2); the correct reciprocal pronoun is “one another”.A correct version: “These five sisters care for one another like mothers.” Verification / Alternative check: Replace “one other” with “one another”: “These five sisters care for one another like mothers.” This now sounds natural and grammatically correct in English. We could also say “care for each other like mothers”, which is also acceptable. However, “care for one other” is never used as a reciprocal pronoun structure in standard English. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (1) simply introduces the subject correctly. Part (3) “like mothers” is fine because it compares the intensity of care to that of mothers. Since the only clear error is in Part (2), Option “2” is the right answer. “No Error (4)” cannot be chosen because the phrase “one other” is grammatically incorrect in this context. Common Pitfalls: Students often get confused between “one another” and “one other” due to speed-reading. Remember that “one another” and “each other” are established reciprocal pronouns expressing mutual actions among people, whereas “one other” is not used for this purpose. Whenever you see a group like “five sisters”, quickly check if the reciprocal pronoun after it has the necessary “an” in “another”. Final Answer: The error is in part 2; it should be “care for one another”.

Question 11

Five statements about Energy Savings Certificates (ESCerts) are given. Four of them can be arranged to form a coherent paragraph about their design and coverage. From the given options, choose the statement that does NOT fit logically into this them…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is a paragraph-arrangement or “odd sentence out” type. The four statements given all mention Energy Savings Certificates (ESCerts) and related rules. Your task is to identify which sentence does not fit smoothly into a single coherent explanatory paragraph about the nature and coverage of these certificates. Such questions test both comprehension and logical organisation skills. Given Data / Assumptions: Option A: CERC allowed Energy Savings Certificates to be traded on a power exchange platform. Option B: Pricing of the certificate would be as per the energy conservation rules. Option C: These cover 65% of the electricity consumed by industries. Option D: The rules prescribe that one certificate shall be equal to the energy consumed in terms of one metric tonne of oil equivalent. We assume all sentences refer to the same policy framework for ESCerts. Concept / Approach: To solve an “odd one out” question, you first try to see which three statements can clearly form a tight mini-paragraph with a common focus. Here, statements B, C and D all describe characteristics of the certificates themselves: their pricing (B), their coverage of industrial consumption (C), and the unit equivalence in energy terms (D). Statement A, on the other hand, talks about a regulatory decision by CERC to allow trading of these certificates on a power exchange platform. While related to the same scheme, it is about market infrastructure, not the internal design or definition of ESCerts. Step-by-Step Solution: Group statements by theme:Statements B, C, D – all describe internal rules and characteristics of ESCerts: how they are priced, how much industrial electricity they cover, and what one certificate represents in energy terms.Statement A – describes the regulatory permission to trade them on an exchange, which is more about implementation than about definition.Imagine a coherent paragraph: “The rules prescribe that one certificate shall be equal to the energy consumed in terms of one metric tonne of oil equivalent. The pricing of the certificate would be as per the energy conservation rules. These cover 65% of the electricity consumed by industries.”This paragraph flows well without Statement A, as it consistently explains what ESCerts are and how they are quantified and priced.Adding A as the last or first sentence shifts the focus to trading platforms rather than to the descriptive rules about the certificates. Verification / Alternative check: If we start with A, the paragraph might read: “CERC allowed Energy Savings Certificates to be traded on a power exchange platform. The pricing of the certificate would be as per the energy conservation rules. These cover 65% of the electricity consumed by industries. The rules prescribe that one certificate shall be equal to the energy consumed in terms of one metric tonne of oil equivalent.” This is not wrong, but the core theme of B, C and D is “what ESCerts represent and how they are priced and measured”, whereas A introduces a different sub-topic: trading permission and exchange listing. For an odd-one-out question, we select the sentence that can be removed while leaving a compact, focused explanation; that sentence is A. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Removing B would leave us without any statement about pricing, which is central to an explanation of certificates. Removing C would omit the important information on coverage (65% of industrial consumption). Removing D would leave the energy unit (metric tonne of oil equivalent) undefined. Each of these three strongly supports a core descriptive paragraph; A is more peripheral and procedural. Common Pitfalls: Students may think that because all sentences are about ESCerts, there is no odd one out. However, paragraph organisation questions often rely on subtle differences in focus. Always ask: “Which sentences together explain one tight theme?” and “Which sentence could be moved to a different paragraph (for example, about trading mechanisms) without disturbing this explanation?” That sentence is the odd one out. Final Answer: The statement that does not fit the main explanatory theme is “Central electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) allowed Energy savings certificates to be traded on power exchange platform.”

Question 12

Five statements describing the traditional social position of so-called “untouchables” are given. Four of them form a coherent description of their occupations, diet, and living conditions. From the given options, choose the statement that does NOT …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This “odd one out” question deals with a sensitive historical topic: the social and occupational status of the group traditionally labelled as “untouchables” in the caste system. The statements describe various aspects of their life. Your task is not to judge the content ethically (modern law rightly rejects such discrimination), but simply to identify which sentence does not sit comfortably with the specific theme formed by the other sentences. Given Data / Assumptions: Option A: They have to kill or dispose of dead cattle or work with their hides for a living. Option B: They pursued activities involving contact with bodily emissions like faeces, urine, sweat and spittle. Option C: They have to eat the flesh of cattle or domestic pigs and must live outside the village. Option D: They were not allowed to enter temples or touch wells, rivers or ponds. All four sentences clearly concern practices connected with the idea of “untouchability”. Concept / Approach: In a paragraph-arrangement or odd-sentence-out task, you look for a common thread. Here, statements A, B and C focus mainly on the prescribed occupations, tasks, and living arrangements associated (historically and unjustly) with untouchables: handling dead cattle and hides (A), working with human waste and bodily emissions (B), and being forced to eat certain kinds of meat and live outside the village (C). Statement D, while still related to discrimination, shifts the focus from occupations and living conditions to religious and social prohibitions about entering temples and touching public water sources. It belongs more naturally to a discussion on restrictions on access, rather than on “unclean” work and marginal living conditions. Step-by-Step Solution: Group A, B, C: all describe occupational and lifestyle expectations imposed on untouchables – disposing of dead animals, working with hides, handling bodily waste, eating certain meat, and living outside village boundaries.Statement D: describes ritual and social prohibitions on entering temples and using wells, rivers or ponds; it is about access to sacred spaces and shared resources.Imagine a focused paragraph: “Untouchables had to kill or dispose of dead cattle or work with their hides. They pursued activities that involved contact with bodily emissions such as faeces, urine, sweat and spittle. They were forced to eat the flesh of cattle or domestic pigs and live outside the village.”This paragraph is tightly about the nature of their work and harsh living conditions, all of which were seen as “polluting” tasks.Statement D, though historically connected, introduces a slightly different sub-theme: denial of temple and water access, which could form the basis of a second paragraph on social and religious exclusion. Verification / Alternative check: If we remove D, the remaining three sentences form a coherent description of occupations and living spaces, all linked by the idea of physical “pollution” as defined by the old caste mindset. If we instead remove B or C, we lose important details about that pollution-linked work and lifestyle. Removing A would omit the very typical task of disposing of dead cattle, making the paragraph feel incomplete. D is the one that most naturally stands apart as a separate but related dimension of discrimination. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A, B, and C all focus on the work (handling carcasses, hides, bodily waste) and living conditions (eating certain meat, living outside the village) that historically defined the “untouchable” status. These three can easily stand together in a single descriptive paragraph. Option D deals with ritual exclusion from temples and water sources; although part of the same broader topic, it introduces a new angle and therefore fits less tightly in a one-paragraph description of occupation and residence. Common Pitfalls: Because all four statements mention the same group and all are negative or discriminatory, it is tempting to think there is no odd one out. In such questions, you must look more finely at sub-themes: “What they do and where they live” versus “what places they are not allowed to enter.” The exam expects you to notice this subtle shift in focus. Final Answer: The statement that does not fit as neatly into the paragraph about occupations and living conditions is “They were not allowed to enter the temples or touch wells, river or ponds.”

Question 13

Five statements are given about the state of the world’s oceans. Four of them form a coherent paragraph describing how the ocean has been mistreated. From the given options, choose the statement that does NOT fit logically into this passage.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is an “odd sentence out” question based on a short thematic passage. All four options talk about the ocean and how humans have behaved towards it. Your task is to identify which sentence breaks the main flow of the paragraph and therefore does not fit as neatly with the others. The skill being tested is your ability to see the underlying structure of an argument or description. Given Data / Assumptions: Option A: Recent global cooperation on ocean issues is welcome. Option B: The ocean has suffered decades of abuse and neglect. Option C: The ocean has been treated as a free-for-all garbage bin and a race-to-the-bottom buffet. Option D: We have financed its destruction, with no regard for the consequences. All refer to the ocean and human actions or attitudes towards it. Concept / Approach: First, identify the central theme. Statements B, C and D all emphasise long-term, negative treatment of the ocean: abuse, neglect, using it as a dumping ground, exploiting resources, and even financially supporting destructive activities. They describe the problem and its causes. Statement A, however, shifts the tone to something positive: recent global cooperation and its welcome nature. While related to the same broad topic, it functions more like a conclusion or a new paragraph that shifts from “problem description” to “solution or hope”. In a question asking for the one sentence that does not fit into a single coherent passage, A stands out. Step-by-Step Solution: Group B, C, D: all focus on the severity and nature of the ocean's mistreatment.Statement B opens with “The ocean has suffered decades of abuse and neglect” – a natural introduction to the problem.Statement C elaborates with vivid metaphors: a garbage bin and a race-to-the-bottom buffet.Statement D continues the same negative tone: we financed its destruction with no regard for consequences.Together, B, C and D form a grim, unified picture of human abuse of the ocean.Statement A, however, introduces “global cooperation” and calls it “certainly welcome”, which is a shift towards solution and optimism.Hence, A does not belong in the same tight descriptive paragraph; it belongs in a follow-up paragraph about remedies. Verification / Alternative check: You can construct a coherent paragraph with B, C, and D: “The ocean has suffered decades of abuse and neglect. It has been treated as a free-for-all garbage bin and race-to-the-bottom buffet. We have financed its destruction, with no regard for the consequences.” This forms a complete, logical description of the problem. If you then add A, it sounds like a new idea or conclusion beginning a second paragraph: after describing how bad things are, the writer shifts to welcome global cooperation. Because the question wants four sentences in one coherent passage, the “hopeful” sentence is the odd one out. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Removing B would deprive the passage of a strong opening. Removing C would drop vivid detail that supports the claim of abuse. Removing D would remove the important point about financial support for destructive practices. Each of B, C and D is firmly rooted in describing the harm done to the ocean, while A moves into the different territory of solutions and global effort. Common Pitfalls: Since all four sentences involve the ocean, some students conclude that no statement is odd. However, paragraph-based questions often hinge on tone shifts. Learn to notice when the author suddenly moves from “problem description” to “solution or hope”. That shift usually marks a new paragraph and can signal the odd sentence when only one paragraph is expected. Final Answer: The statement that does not fit the core descriptive passage is “The global cooperation that has emerged lately is certainly welcome.”

Question 14

Five statements are given about academic disciplines and the human condition. Four of them form a coherent paragraph about John Stuart Mill’s view and the rise of specialization. From the given options, choose the statement that does NOT fit into th…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is another “odd sentence out” question in which you must identify which of the four given statements does not logically belong to a short passage. The passage is centred on John Stuart Mill’s view of economics and the modern trend towards specialization in academic disciplines. One sentence abruptly shifts to a different topic and therefore does not fit the passage’s theme. Given Data / Assumptions: Option A introduces John Stuart Mill and his belief that one cannot be a good economist by being “just an economist”. Option B notes that since his day, most academic disciplines have become highly specialized and mentions the collapse of theology. Option C continues that, after this collapse, no field aims to understand the human condition as a whole. Option D suddenly talks about the life insurance industry being destroyed by high and uncertain inflation. We assume the intended passage is about intellectual specialization, not about financial industries. Concept / Approach: Sentences A, B and C clearly share a theme: they discuss economics as a discipline, Mill’s broader humanistic criteria for a “good economist”, and the way modern disciplines have narrowed their focus. They move from one idea to the next logically: Mill's belief → later specialization → result that nobody studies the human condition as a whole. Sentence D, in contrast, jumps to the life insurance industry and the effect of inflation on it – a topic that could belong in a different passage about economic policy, but not in this one about intellectual specialization. Step-by-Step Solution: Link A, B and C in order:A: Introduces Mill and his idea that an economist should not be narrowly focused.B: Moves to the broader point that disciplines have become highly specialized since Mill’s time, especially after theology’s decline.C: Concludes that no field now aims to understand the human condition as a whole.These three sentences clearly form a logical mini-essay about the fragmentation of knowledge and the loss of a unified perspective on human life.Now examine D: “The life insurance industry has been destroyed by high and uncertain inflation as well.”This sentence talks about a specific economic sector and macroeconomic conditions (inflation), with no link to specialization or Mill’s philosophical concerns.It could appear in a separate passage about economic consequences of inflation, but here it breaks the flow. Verification / Alternative check: Reading A–B–C together, you get a coherent thought chain about what makes a good economist and how the modern academic environment contrasts with that ideal. Introducing D in this chain feels like a sudden, unrelated example of economic damage that does not support or extend the argument about specialization. If you remove D, the passage still makes complete sense; if you remove any of A, B, or C, the logical connection among the remaining sentences becomes weaker or incomplete. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A, B, and C are tightly knit: they talk about Mill, academic disciplines, specialization, theology, and the human condition. Each sentence naturally leads to the next. Removing any of them breaks the argument. Only D looks like an aside or intrusion from a different article on inflation and insurance; hence D is the odd one out. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students attempt to force a connection (“inflation is an economic topic, so it must relate to economists”), but the passage is about the intellectual scope of disciplines, not about specific sectors of the economy. Do not confuse general subject labels (economics, inflation) with the exact line of reasoning in the passage. Final Answer: The sentence that does not fit the theme of academic specialization and Mill’s view is “The life insurance industry has been destroyed by high and uncertain inflation as well.”

Question 15

Five statements are given about demonetisation and currency transitions. Four of them form a coherent paragraph about smooth currency changeovers such as the adoption of the euro. From the given options, choose the statement that does NOT fit logica…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This “odd sentence out” question focuses on demonetisation and currency transitions, including examples from countries adopting the euro. Your job is to see which sentence does not belong naturally in a single, tightly focused paragraph about specific examples of smooth currency transitions and their impact. Given Data / Assumptions: Option A: Describes “this form of demonetization” where citizens are given enough time to trade old bills for new. Option B: States that in these scenarios there is minimal economic and social disruption. Option C: Gives an example of Lithuania's transition from the litas to the euro in 2015. Option D: Extends the euro examples with Germany, France, and other eurozone countries. We assume the passage aims to illustrate smooth, well-planned currency transitions using the euro adoption as the primary case study. Concept / Approach: Sentences B, C, and D can easily form a flowing paragraph about specific cases of smooth currency transitions and the minimal disruption they caused. B is a general statement about what happens “in these scenarios” (well-planned transitions), and C and D provide concrete examples from the eurozone. Sentence A, however, introduces a broader, somewhat generic description of a particular “form of demonetization”, without directly tying itself to the euro examples. It reads more like a separate explanatory sentence that would typically precede a more detailed discussion of different demonetisation methods, rather than belonging inside a tightly focused euro-adoption paragraph. Step-by-Step Solution: Look at C and D first: they clearly belong together. C mentions Lithuania’s smooth transition to the euro in 2015, and D immediately continues with “as did Germany and France’s adoption of the euro in cash form in 2002, and so on with all 19 countries that have joined the eurozone.”Now consider B: “In these scenarios, there is minimal economic and social disruption.” This sentence fits perfectly as a summary of what C and D illustrate – the smoothness of such transitions.Together, B, C, and D form a logical sequence: general principle (B) → Lithuania example (C) → more eurozone examples (D).Sentence A: “With this form of demonetization, citizens are given enough time to trade in the old bills for the new,” introduces a generic type of demonetisation but does not explicitly mention the euro or the specific examples that follow.It could belong in a broader discussion of demonetisation strategies worldwide, but is less tightly connected to the euro-focused examples than B, C, and D are to each other. Verification / Alternative check: Construct a coherent paragraph with B, C and D: “In these scenarios, there is minimal economic and social disruption. When Lithuania left the litas and adopted the euro in 2015, its currency transition went smoothly, as did Germany and France’s adoption of the euro in cash form in 2002, and so on with all 19 countries that have joined the eurozone.” This is a compact, logical passage explaining that smooth transitions cause little disruption, with eurozone cases as evidence. Sentence A could precede this paragraph and introduce the idea of “this form of demonetisation” more broadly, but when we are forced to keep only four sentences in one coherent passage, A is the one that can be removed while keeping the paragraph tightly focused on euro transitions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Removing B would leave C and D as examples without any summarising statement about their impact, weakening the passage. Removing C or D would break the chain of multiple examples that strengthen the point about euro countries. On the other hand, A is more general and does not explicitly reference the euro or the examples mentioned later; it can be omitted without harming the internal coherence of the remaining three sentences. Common Pitfalls: Because demonetisation and currency changeovers are related concepts, it is easy to assume that any general statement on demonetisation fits the paragraph. However, paragraph-coherence questions demand that you look for the tightest thematic grouping. Here, the strongest group is the trio that focuses specifically on euro adoption and its smooth execution; a single general sentence about “this form of demonetisation” stands slightly outside that core group. Final Answer: The sentence that does not fit as neatly into the euro-focused passage is “With this form of demonetization, citizens are given enough time to trade in the old bills for the new,”.

Question 16

Read each sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. If there is no error, the answer is “No error”. (Ignore punctuation errors, if any.) The coverage of schemes remain …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error-spotting question tests your understanding of subject-verb agreement in English. The sentence talks about “the coverage of schemes” and describes it as patchy due to leakages, poor execution and monitoring problems. The main issue is whether the singular subject “coverage” agrees with the verb that follows. Given Data / Assumptions: Part A: “The coverage of schemes remain” Part B: “patchy because of rampant” Part C: “leakages, and poor execution” Part D: “and monitoring” Part E: “No error” The intended correct sentence is: “The coverage of schemes remains patchy because of rampant leakages, and poor execution and monitoring.” Concept / Approach: In English, the verb must agree with the true subject in number (singular or plural). Here, the subject is not “schemes” but “coverage”. The phrase “of schemes” is a prepositional phrase modifying “coverage”. Since “coverage” is singular, the verb must also be singular: “remains”, not “remain”. Many error-spotting questions are designed precisely to test whether you can look past the plural noun inside a prepositional phrase and match the verb to the main noun instead. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the subject: “coverage” is the head noun; “of schemes” only tells you “coverage of what”.Decide on number: “coverage” is singular, so it needs a singular verb.Check the verb used: “remain” is plural and does not agree with the singular subject.The verb should be “remains”: “The coverage of schemes remains…”Parts B, C, and D – “patchy because of rampant leakages, and poor execution and monitoring” – are all grammatically acceptable phrases describing the reason for the patchy coverage.Therefore, the grammatical error lies in Part A. Verification / Alternative check: Rewrite the sentence in a simpler form: “The coverage remains patchy.” Clearly, “coverage” (singular) pairs with “remains”. Adding the prepositional phrase “of schemes” should not change the verb form: “The coverage of schemes remains patchy.” If we changed the subject to plural, for example, “The schemes remain patchy”, then “remain” would be correct, but that is not the structure here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part B (“patchy because of rampant”) correctly introduces the reason. Part C (“leakages, and poor execution”) is grammatically fine, listing two causes. Part D (“and monitoring”) simply extends the list. None of these parts break any grammar rules; they only add details to the core idea that coverage is patchy. The only mismatch is between “coverage” and “remain” in Part A, so that is the correct error location. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to let the nearer noun “schemes” control the verb instead of the true subject “coverage”. This is known as a proximity error. Competitive exams regularly test this by inserting prepositional phrases between the subject and the verb. To avoid this trap, always strip away prepositional phrases (“of X”, “in Y”) and check agreement between the main noun and the verb first. Final Answer: The error is in part “The coverage of schemes remain”; it should be “The coverage of schemes remains”.

Question 17

In the following question, a sentence is divided into four parts. Identify the part that contains a grammatical error, or select 4 if there is no error: Their innovative zeal has (1)/ touched the lives of 125 crore (2)/ Indians and make India proud …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error-spotting question checks your understanding of subject-verb agreement and parallel structure in English grammar. The sentence describes how innovative zeal has affected many Indians and India's image worldwide. You must decide which numbered part contains a grammatical mistake or whether the sentence is error-free. Given Data / Assumptions: - Full sentence split into parts: - (1) Their innovative zeal has - (2) touched the lives of 125 crore - (3) Indians and make India proud worldwide. - (4) No error (represents no grammatical mistake in the sentence). - The tense and structure should be consistent across the whole sentence. Concept / Approach: The key concepts here are subject-verb agreement and parallelism in verb forms. When two verbs follow the same auxiliary (has), they should be in the same form (usually past participle for perfect tenses). In present perfect tense, we say has touched and has made, not has touched and make. Once you identify the helping verb has, you must ensure the verbs that follow match in form and maintain a balanced, parallel structure. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check part (1): Their innovative zeal has – this is correct; has agrees with the singular subject zeal.Step 2: Combine (1) and (2): Their innovative zeal has touched the lives of 125 crore – this correctly forms the present perfect has touched.Step 3: Add (3): Indians and make India proud worldwide. Here, make is in the base form and is not parallel with touched, which is a past participle.Step 4: For proper parallelism, we need has touched and made India proud worldwide. The correct phrase should be and made, not and make.Step 5: Therefore, the error is in part (3), and option 3 is the correct choice. Verification / Alternative check: Rewrite the sentence correctly: Their innovative zeal has touched the lives of 125 crore Indians and made India proud worldwide. Now the structure has + past participle is used consistently in both touched and made. The sentence is smooth, grammatically correct, and clear. No other part shows errors in agreement, tense, or word choice, confirming that part (3) is the only problematic segment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Part (1) has is correctly used with the singular noun zeal. - Part (2) touched the lives of 125 crore is grammatically fine and fits after has. - Part (4) No error cannot be chosen because we have clearly identified a mistake in part (3). Common Pitfalls: Students often overlook parallelism when two verbs share the same auxiliary verb. They may focus only on the first verb and ignore the second. Another frequent mistake is treating and make as a separate clause, forgetting that it is still controlled by has earlier in the sentence. Always check that all verb phrases connected by and, or or but match in tense and form when they share the same subject and auxiliary. Final Answer: The error is in part 3, because and make should be replaced with and made to maintain correct parallel structure in the present perfect tense.

Question 18

In the following question, a sentence is divided into four parts. Identify the part that contains a grammatical error, or select 4 if there is no error: The reason why he failed (1)/ to attend the meeting (2)/ with a complete presentation (3)/ was b…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error-spotting question examines your understanding of redundancy in English expressions, especially in sentences stating reasons. The sentence explains why someone failed to attend a meeting with a complete presentation. You must identify which numbered part has a grammatical or idiomatic problem, or decide that the sentence has no error at all. Given Data / Assumptions: - Sentence segments: - (1) The reason why he failed - (2) to attend the meeting - (3) with a complete presentation - (4) was because he was unwell. - The sentence is intended to express one clear cause for his failure. - The structure should be concise and free from unnecessary repetition. Concept / Approach: The key concept is avoiding redundant expressions of reason. The phrase the reason why already introduces a cause, so following it with because creates a double expression of the same idea. Standard, formal English prefers either The reason is that... or He failed because..., but not The reason is because.... In exam questions, this redundancy is treated as incorrect usage and is a common target in error-spotting exercises. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read part (1): The reason why he failed. This is an acceptable way to introduce the cause of his failure.Step 2: Part (2): to attend the meeting correctly continues the infinitive phrase and explains what he failed to do.Step 3: Part (3): with a complete presentation adds additional detail and is grammatically fine.Step 4: Part (4): was because he was unwell combines was with because, following the earlier phrase the reason why and creating redundancy.Step 5: The corrected version should read: The reason why he failed to attend the meeting with a complete presentation was that he was unwell.Step 6: Therefore, the error lies in part (4). Verification / Alternative check: We can compare correct patterns: The reason for his failure was that he was unwell and He failed to attend the meeting with a complete presentation because he was unwell are both standard. However, The reason... was because he was unwell repeats the notion of cause twice. Grammar books and exam keys generally mark reason... because structures as incorrect. No grammar or usage issues appear in parts (1), (2) or (3), confirming that part (4) is the only erroneous segment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Part (1) The reason why he failed is acceptable as a lead-in to the cause. - Part (2) to attend the meeting is grammatically correct. - Part (3) with a complete presentation is correctly formed and fits the context. - Since part (4) contains the redundancy, No error is not an acceptable answer. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to overlook redundancy because the structure sounds familiar in casual speech. Many people say the reason is because in everyday conversation, but exams expect concise, non-repetitive constructions. Another pitfall is focusing only on tense or subject-verb agreement and missing idiomatic issues. Always review the sentence for unnecessary repetition, particularly in expressions of cause such as reason, because, due to and since. Final Answer: The incorrect segment is part 4. The phrase was because should be replaced with was that, making the correct sentence: The reason why he failed to attend the meeting with a complete presentation was that he was unwell.

Question 19

In the following question, a sentence is divided into four parts. Identify the part that contains a grammatical or word-usage error, or select 4 if there is no error: Jaitely announced a waivered of the service charge (1)/ on e-tickets and spoke abo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests both grammar and correct word formation in English. The sentence talks about Jaitely announcing changes to a service charge on e-tickets and introducing steps to improve passenger amenities. You have to locate the part containing an incorrect word form or grammatical error, or choose 4 for No error if the sentence is entirely correct. Given Data / Assumptions: - Sentence parts: - (1) Jaitely announced a waivered of the service charge - (2) on e-tickets and spoke about a number of steps - (3) to improve passenger amenities - (4) such as a ‘‘coach mitra’’ facility. - The sentence should describe a waiver of a service charge, which is a common financial term. Concept / Approach: The main concept here is choosing the correct noun form. In financial and legal usage, waiver is the noun that refers to the act of giving up a claim or charge. Waived is a verb (past tense) and waived off is a common expression. Waiver is not normally written as waivered. The structure a waivered of the service charge is therefore incorrect; it should be a waiver of the service charge or he waived the service charge. The other parts simply expand information and appear grammatically sound. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (1): Jaitely announced a waivered of the service charge. The phrase a waivered is not standard English.Step 2: Identify the correct word. As a noun, the proper term is a waiver of the service charge, meaning an official cancellation of the charge.Step 3: Replace waivered with waiver to produce the correct phrase: Jaitely announced a waiver of the service charge.Step 4: Check part (2): on e-tickets and spoke about a number of steps. This is grammatically correct and logically consistent.Step 5: Part (3): to improve passenger amenities is a correct infinitive phrase describing the purpose of the steps.Step 6: Part (4): such as a ‘‘coach mitra’’ facility correctly introduces an example of the amenities.Step 7: Only part (1) contains the wrong word form, so option 1 is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, rewrite the full corrected sentence: Jaitely announced a waiver of the service charge on e-tickets and spoke about a number of steps to improve passenger amenities such as a ‘‘coach mitra’’ facility. This sentence is grammatically sound and uses the correct technical term waiver. If we attempted to adjust other parts instead, we would break otherwise correct grammar or distort the meaning. Therefore, the only real error comes from the incorrect word waivered in part (1). Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Part (2) on e-tickets and spoke about a number of steps is a correct and natural continuation. - Part (3) to improve passenger amenities expresses purpose clearly. - Part (4) such as a ‘‘coach mitra’’ facility correctly introduces a specific example. - Since part (1) definitely contains a wrong form, No error cannot be correct. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes create incorrect forms by adding -ed to nouns that already have a fixed shape, for example saying *refunded for refund or *waivered for waiver. Another problem is confusing verb phrases like waived off the charge with noun phrases like a waiver of the charge. To avoid these mistakes, you should pay attention to standard collocations in newspapers, financial documents and official announcements. Remember that in noun position after a, you generally need a standard noun like waiver, not an invented form. Final Answer: The incorrect segment is part 1. The phrase should read Jaitely announced a waiver of the service charge, not a waivered of the service charge.

Question 20

In the following question, a sentence is divided into four parts. Identify the part that contains a grammatical or idiomatic error, or select 4 if there is no error: Do you wanted (1)/ to discuss this (2)/ project today or can (3)/ we do it tomorrow…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of auxiliary verbs (helping verbs) and how they combine with main verbs in questions. The sentence is a polite question about discussing a project now or later. You must find the part of the sentence where the verb form is incorrect, or decide that the sentence has no error. Given Data / Assumptions: - Sentence parts: - (1) Do you wanted - (2) to discuss this - (3) project today or can - (4) we do it tomorrow? - The sentence is clearly intended to be a present-time question. Concept / Approach: The key concept is how do is used as an auxiliary verb to form questions in the simple present tense. When do (or does/did) is used as a helping verb, the main verb must be in its base form (want), not in the past form (wanted) or -ing form. Therefore, structures like Do you wanted...? are incorrect; we should say Do you want...?, or in past tense, Did you want...? The remaining parts of the sentence deal with infinitives and modal verbs, which appear correct. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Look at part (1): Do you wanted. Here, do is an auxiliary in the present, but wanted is a past tense form. This combination is grammatically incorrect.Step 2: The proper form in simple present is Do you want, where want is in the base form.Step 3: Check part (2): to discuss this. This is a correct infinitive phrase completing the meaning of want.Step 4: Consider part (3): project today or can. The phrase project today or can introduces an alternative with the modal can, which is fine.Step 5: Part (4): we do it tomorrow? correctly follows the modal can (as in or can we do it tomorrow?).Step 6: Therefore only part (1) contains the error, and the corrected sentence begins with Do you want to discuss this.... Verification / Alternative check: We can rewrite the full corrected sentence: Do you want to discuss this project today or can we do it tomorrow? This is a smooth, natural question. Another version in past tense would be Did you want to discuss this project today or could we do it tomorrow?, but that would require changing do to did and can to could. Since only want needs to match the auxiliary do in the original simple present, part (1) is clearly the erroneous segment. Why Other Options Are Wrong: - Part (2) to discuss this is grammatically correct and properly linked to want. - Part (3) project today or can is fine as part of the larger phrase project today or can we.... - Part (4) we do it tomorrow? correctly follows the modal can. - Since we have identified a definite error in part (1), No error cannot be correct. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes forget that once an auxiliary like do or did is used, the main verb must stay in its base form. They may say Do you went...? or Do you wanted...? instead of Do you go...? or Did you want...? Another common problem is mixing present and past tenses in the same question without a good reason. Always check that the auxiliary and the main verb agree in tense and that only one of them carries the tense marking. Final Answer: The incorrect segment is part 1. The sentence should start with Do you want to discuss this project today or can we do it tomorrow?

English Questions