Question 1

In this idiom based question, choose the alternative that best expresses the meaning of the English expression "blow your own trumpet", which is often used to describe a certain kind of behaviour.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The phrase "blow your own trumpet" is a common English idiom used in both everyday conversation and formal writing. It usually appears when someone is talking about how people present their achievements or talents. This question asks you to identify what type of behaviour is being criticised or described when someone is said to "blow their own trumpet". Recognising such idioms is important for understanding tone and attitude in texts. Given Data / Assumptions: - The idiom under test is "blow your own trumpet".- The options suggest actions such as playing music, surprising oneself, praising oneself, or excusing one's own actions.- The idiom is generally used with a slightly negative or humorous tone.- You must select the meaning that matches standard usage in modern English. Concept / Approach: Idioms like "blow your own trumpet" are figurative expressions. Literally, it would mean playing a musical instrument, but figuratively it refers to talking proudly about your own achievements. The image is of someone loudly announcing their own importance, much as a trumpet calls attention to itself. Therefore, the idiom is associated with self praise, boasting, or advertising one's own abilities, rather than music, surprise, or forgiveness. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Ignore the literal picture of a musical instrument and focus on how the idiom is used in real sentences.Step 2: Recall examples such as "He is always blowing his own trumpet about his sales record" or "She does not like to blow her own trumpet, but she has done excellent work".Step 3: From these examples, note that the idiom appears when someone is talking about their own success or skills.Step 4: Examine each option: playing music, surprising oneself, praising oneself, or condoning oneself.Step 5: Observe that self praise or boasting matches the idea of drawing attention to yourself, similar to a trumpet fanfare.Step 6: Conclude that "Praise oneself" is the correct interpretation of the idiom. Verification / Alternative check: Check the tone of typical usage. When someone says, "I do not want to blow my own trumpet, but I worked very hard on this project", the speaker is apologetically acknowledging that they are about to mention their own achievements. The focus is not on music or surprise; it is on presenting oneself in a positive light. Dictionaries and exam guides also define this idiom as talking too proudly about your own achievements. This confirms that the meaning is self praise or boasting. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Play some music": This is the literal meaning and misses the figurative, idiomatic sense that exams test.Option "Surprise oneself": There is no element of surprise in the idiom; it is about deliberate self promotion.Option "Condone oneself": To condone means to forgive or overlook mistakes, which is unrelated to the idea of boasting about success. Common Pitfalls: Some learners interpret idioms too literally and think of the musical instrument rather than the figurative meaning. Others confuse this idiom with expressions about feeling proud, such as "pat yourself on the back", but they all share the idea of self praise. The nuance with "blow your own trumpet" is that it often carries a warning: people usually prefer modesty. Remember that in competitive exams, idioms almost always require the figurative meaning, not the literal interpretation of the words. Final Answer: The idiom "blow your own trumpet" means to praise oneself, especially by speaking proudly about one's own achievements or abilities.

Question 2

Choose the one-word substitute that best matches the given definition: shine with a bright but brief or irregular light.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question tests your ability to identify an exact one-word substitute for a descriptive phrase. These questions are common in competitive exams because they measure both your word power and your precision in matching meanings. The phrase here describes a particular way in which light behaves, and you must choose the verb that captures this behaviour in standard English usage. Given Data / Assumptions: - The descriptive phrase is: shine with a bright but brief or irregular light.- The options are: Whimper, Flicker, Cower, Mutter.- Only one option should correctly describe a type of light or shining.- The other options relate to sounds or body posture, not light. Concept / Approach: To answer one-word substitution questions, you should first understand the exact meaning of the phrase and then check which option has that meaning. The phrase "shine with a bright but brief or irregular light" suggests a light that is not steady but goes on and off or becomes brighter and dimmer repeatedly. In English, the verb "flicker" precisely describes such behaviour of light. The other words describe crying softly, shrinking back in fear, or speaking in a low, unclear voice, none of which relate to light. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key idea in the phrase: the light is bright but not steady; it is brief or irregular.Step 2: Recall that "flicker" is used for candles, flames, and screens when they glow unsteadily or appear and disappear quickly.Step 3: Consider the meaning of "whimper": to cry or make weak, complaining sounds, usually associated with people or animals.Step 4: Recall that "cower" means to bend or crouch down in fear or shame, usually referring to a person or animal's posture.Step 5: Remember that "mutter" means to speak in a low, indistinct voice, often expressing dissatisfaction or complaint.Step 6: Only "flicker" refers to the behaviour of light; therefore it is the correct one-word substitute. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify your choice by using each option in a test sentence that describes light: "The candle began to whimper", "The candle began to flicker", "The candle began to cower", "The candle began to mutter". Only "flicker" fits naturally in English; the others do not make sense because they describe emotional or vocal actions, not luminous behaviour. Additionally, dictionaries define "flicker" as to burn or shine with a wavering light, which matches the phrase in the question very closely. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Whimper": Refers to a soft, weak cry or sound, and does not relate to light or shining.Option "Cower": Describes bending low in fear or shame; it is about body posture, not light.Option "Mutter": Refers to speaking softly and unclearly; again, it concerns sound, not illumination. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes focus on the general negative tone of unfamiliar words and guess randomly instead of analysing the core meaning. Another common mistake is to misread the phrase and think it describes a sound rather than light. To avoid such errors, always identify the domain of the description first: light, sound, movement, emotion, or posture. Once you know that the phrase is about light, it becomes easier to eliminate options that clearly belong to other domains. Final Answer: The correct one-word substitute is Flicker, which means to shine with a brief or irregular, unsteady light.

Question 3

Choose the one-word substitute that best matches the phrase: the act of setting free from bondage or any other form of severe restriction.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This vocabulary question focuses on the ability to select a precise one-word substitute for a given descriptive phrase. The phrase refers to the process of being set free from bondage, which may be physical slavery, legal restrictions, or social oppression. Understanding this concept is important in history, law, and social studies, as the term appears in discussions about human rights and social reform movements. Given Data / Assumptions: - The phrase is: the act of setting free from bondage of any kind.- The options are: Emancipation, Eradication, Indemnity, Emigration.- Only one option correctly expresses the idea of being freed from control or slavery.- The other options belong to different semantic fields such as removal, compensation, or migration. Concept / Approach: The key concept here is liberation from bondage. The word "emancipation" refers specifically to the act of freeing a person or group from legal, social, or political restrictions. Historical examples include the emancipation of slaves or the emancipation of women from discriminatory laws. The other words have different meanings: "eradication" means complete destruction, "indemnity" relates to compensation for damage or loss, and "emigration" is about people leaving their own country to live in another. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the central idea in the phrase: being set free from bondage or restriction.Step 2: Recall the definition of "emancipation": the act of freeing someone from legal, social, or political restrictions or from slavery.Step 3: Consider "eradication": usually used for diseases, pests, or problems, meaning complete elimination, not freeing people.Step 4: Examine "indemnity": a payment or protection against loss or damage, common in law and insurance.Step 5: Look at "emigration": the act of leaving one's own country to settle permanently in another, which is about movement, not liberation.Step 6: Conclude that only "emancipation" matches the idea of being set free from bondage. Verification / Alternative check: You can cross-check your choice by placing each option into a historical context: "the emancipation of slaves" is a familiar phrase, whereas "the eradication of slaves" or "the emigration of slaves" does not express the same idea of freedom from bondage. Similarly, "indemnity of slaves" would make no sense because indemnity concerns compensation, not liberation. This clear mismatch of the other options further confirms that "emancipation" is the correct term. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Eradication": Implies destroying or wiping out something, typically a disease or harmful practice; it does not refer to freeing people.Option "Indemnity": Refers to security or compensation for loss or damage, common in legal and insurance contexts.Option "Emigration": Describes people leaving their country to live elsewhere, not the ending of bondage or slavery. Common Pitfalls: Learners may confuse "emancipation" with "emigration" because both words start with "ema" or "emi" and relate to social issues. Another mistake is to think that "eradication" fits because it suggests ending something bad; however, the phrase in the question emphasises freeing people rather than destroying a condition. To avoid such confusion, concentrate on the core meaning of the phrase: liberation from control or bondage. Whenever you see that idea, the correct technical term is usually "emancipation". Final Answer: The correct one-word substitute is Emancipation, which means the act of setting someone free from bondage or from legal, social, or political restrictions.

Question 4

Choose the one-word substitute that best matches the description: a disease that affects a large number of people in a particular area at the same time.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your understanding of basic medical and scientific vocabulary, specifically terms that describe patterns of disease occurrence. Knowing the difference between "endemic", "epidemic", and related words is important for reading news reports, health articles, and exam passages about public health. The question asks you to select the correct term for a disease that suddenly affects many people in a given region at the same time. Given Data / Assumptions: - The phrase is: a disease that affects a large number of people in an area at the same time.- The options are: Endemic, Epidemic, Epidermic, Endothermic.- The context is clearly about disease and its spread among people.- Only one option correctly describes a sudden or widespread outbreak of disease. Concept / Approach: In epidemiology, the term "epidemic" is used when a disease occurs in numbers clearly above normal expectations in a particular community or region. "Endemic" describes a disease that is constantly present in a population or area at a predictable level. "Epidermic" is not a standard medical term; it seems to be a misspelling related to "epidermis", the outer layer of the skin. "Endothermic" belongs to physics and chemistry, describing processes that absorb heat, and has no link to disease spread. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the key idea: a disease affecting a large number of people at the same time in one area.Step 2: Recall that "epidemic" is the standard word used when there is a sudden outbreak of a disease in a region.Step 3: Consider "endemic": it means a disease that is always present in an area, such as malaria in some tropical regions, but not necessarily at unusually high levels.Step 4: Note that "epidermic" does not exist as a recognised term; it would incorrectly refer to skin, not to disease occurrence patterns.Step 5: Identify "endothermic" as a scientific term used for chemical reactions or processes that absorb heat.Step 6: Conclude that "epidemic" is the only option that matches the definition in the question. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify your choice by thinking of real life examples: health authorities speak about an influenza epidemic, a dengue epidemic, or a cholera epidemic when there is a sudden surge of cases. Similarly, global news may report an epidemic in a particular city or region. On the other hand, malaria is called endemic in some areas because it is persistently present. These usage patterns confirm that the term for a sudden, widespread outbreak is "epidemic". Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Endemic": Refers to a disease regularly found in a region, not necessarily affecting a large number of people at the same time above normal levels.Option "Epidermic": Not a standard term; it looks like a mistaken form of "epidermal", which relates to the outer skin layer.Option "Endothermic": Used in physics and chemistry for processes that absorb heat; it has nothing to do with diseases in populations. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse "epidemic" with "endemic" because the words look similar and both are related to diseases. Another pitfall is being distracted by unfamiliar scientific sounding options like "endothermic" and thinking that anything complex must be correct. To avoid these mistakes, always focus on the key phrase in the definition: "affects a large number of people in an area at the same time" is a clear sign of an epidemic. Remember this distinction for future questions in general knowledge and science sections. Final Answer: The correct one-word substitute is Epidemic, which describes a disease that affects a large number of people in a particular area at the same time.

Question 5

In this sentence improvement question on reported speech, choose the best alternative to express the idea correctly: Will you tell me who did accompany you to the airport?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This grammar question tests your understanding of correct word order and auxiliary verb usage in an indirect question within a larger sentence. The original sentence is slightly awkward and ungrammatical because of the unnecessary auxiliary "did" before "accompany". To improve the sentence, you must know how to form indirect questions in English when they follow a main clause such as "Will you tell me". Given Data / Assumptions: - The given sentence is: Will you tell me who did accompany you to the airport?- The part to be improved is the clause "who did accompany you".- The options are: "when did accompany you", "who must be accompanied you", "who accompanied you", and "No improvement".- The intended meaning is to ask for the identity of the person who went with the listener to the airport. Concept / Approach: In English, indirect questions introduced by phrases like "Will you tell me", "Do you know", or "Can you say" generally use normal statement word order and do not require an extra auxiliary "do" when the main verb is already in the past tense. "Who accompanied you" is a simple past statement. When you embed it in a larger sentence as an object clause, you keep the same structure. The auxiliary "did" is only used in direct questions or to add emphasis. Here, it makes the clause sound unnatural and incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main clause: "Will you tell me". This introduces an indirect question.Step 2: Identify the embedded clause: "who did accompany you to the airport".Step 3: Recall that in indirect questions, the clause after "who", "what", "when", etc. usually follows statement order, for example, "who accompanied you", not "who did accompany you" unless strong emphasis is intended.Step 4: Remove the unnecessary "did" and check the remaining clause: "who accompanied you to the airport". It is clear and grammatically correct.Step 5: Compare with the given options and select "who accompanied you" as the best improvement. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by constructing similar sentences: "Will you tell me who helped you", "Can you tell me where you went", "Do you know who called you". In these examples, there is no auxiliary "did" after the wh word, because the verbs "helped", "went", and "called" are already in the simple past. If you insert "did" unnecessarily, the sentences sound wrong or overly emphatic. This pattern confirms that "who accompanied you" is the correct form here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "when did accompany you": Incorrect because it uses "when" instead of "who" and omits the subject "you", producing a grammatically incomplete clause.Option "who must be accompanied you": Wrong because "must be accompanied" would require passive structure such as "must be accompanied by", which does not fit the intended meaning of asking who went with you.Option "No improvement": Incorrect because the original clause with "who did accompany you" is unnecessarily emphatic and unidiomatic in this context. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes think that every past tense question must use "did", even in indirect questions. They may also overuse auxiliaries because they are common in direct interrogative sentences. Another pitfall is failing to distinguish between direct questions ("Who did accompany you?") and indirect questions embedded in statements ("Tell me who accompanied you"). To avoid these mistakes, remember that indirect questions usually follow the normal statement order and do not need an extra auxiliary when the main verb is in simple past or present. Final Answer: The best improvement is who accompanied you, so the correct sentence is: Will you tell me who accompanied you to the airport?

Question 6

In this sentence improvement question, the underlined phrase "departed for London" is to be evaluated in the sentence: Navinder and his wife departed for London by Air India yesterday. Choose the best alternative if improvement is needed.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on correct prepositional usage with the verb "depart" in a travel context. Many learners are unsure whether to say "depart to", "depart for", or "depart towards" when talking about journeys. The sentence given is "Navinder and his wife departed for London by Air India yesterday." You must decide whether the phrase "departed for London" is correct or if it should be replaced by another option. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: Navinder and his wife departed for London by Air India yesterday.- The underlined phrase is "departed for London".- Options suggest changing "for" to "to", "towards", "toward", or leaving it as it is (No improvement).- The intended meaning is that they left their current place and travelled to London. Concept / Approach: In standard English, the verb "depart" is commonly followed by the preposition "for" when indicating the destination: "depart for London", "depart for Delhi", "depart for New York". The pattern "depart to London" is not idiomatic, and "depart towards London" focuses on direction rather than describing the destination of a scheduled journey. Therefore, "depart for London" is the correct and natural collocation, and no change is required. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the verb-preposition combination in the original sentence: "departed for London".Step 2: Recall typical announcements: "The train will depart for Mumbai", "The flight departs for Singapore at six."Step 3: Compare this with "depart to London", which sounds unnatural in modern English.Step 4: Consider "depart towards London", which emphasises direction and is rarely used in scheduled travel contexts.Step 5: Observe that the original structure matches standard usage in airline and railway English.Step 6: Conclude that no grammatical or idiomatic improvement is needed. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by thinking of common travel sentences: "They departed for Paris last night", "The flight departed for Dubai on time", "The bus will depart for the capital at noon". Native speakers consistently use "for" with "depart" when specifying the destination. Dictionaries also give example sentences with "depart for" plus the place name. This repeated pattern confirms that the original phrase is already correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "to": "Depart to London" is not idiomatic; we say "go to London" but "depart for London".Option "towards": Suggests movement in the direction of London but does not match the typical travel announcement style and can sound unusual here.Option "toward": Similar issue as "towards"; it describes direction, not the standard collocation for a planned journey destination. Common Pitfalls: Students may overgeneralise the use of "to" after verbs of movement, assuming that any verb implying motion must be followed by "to" plus a place. However, English has fixed verb-preposition combinations, and "depart for" is one of them. Another pitfall is thinking that "towards" is more formal or advanced, but formality does not make it correct. It is more important to remember collocations as they are naturally used in real travel announcements and written schedules. Final Answer: The phrase "departed for London" is already correct, so the best choice is No improvement.

Question 7

In this sentence improvement item, choose the best alternative to replace the underlined words "more respite" in the sentence: The rain brought more respite from the heat.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of correct collocations and quantifiers in English. The sentence "The rain brought more respite from the heat" sounds slightly awkward because "more respite" suggests a comparison that has not been stated earlier. The task is to choose a more natural and grammatically appropriate expression to describe how the rain reduced the heat. Choosing the right phrase improves both clarity and style. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: The rain brought more respite from the heat.- The underlined expression is "more respite".- Options include: "much respite", "most relief", "severe drought", and "No improvement".- There is no earlier sentence provided that compares degrees of respite. Concept / Approach: The word "respite" refers to a short period of rest or relief from something difficult or unpleasant, such as heat. The quantifier "more" usually marks a comparative: it compares the current level of relief with an earlier level. Since the sentence given does not mention any previous respite, the comparative "more" is not appropriate. Instead, "much respite" is a suitable phrase because "much" works well with uncountable nouns like "respite" and does not require an explicit comparison. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Read the sentence and notice that it is a standalone statement praising the effect of rain on the heat.Step 2: Observe that there is no prior mention of any earlier respite from the heat.Step 3: Recognise that "more respite" implies comparison and therefore seems incomplete without a previous reference.Step 4: Consider the noun "respite" as an uncountable abstract noun similar to "relief", "peace", or "comfort".Step 5: Recall that "much" is used with uncountable nouns: "much relief", "much comfort", "much respite".Step 6: Conclude that "much respite" is the best improvement, making the sentence natural and grammatically correct. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can compare similar sentences: "The rain brought much relief from the heat", "The cool breeze brought much comfort after the hot day". Both sound correct and idiomatic. Replacing "much" with "more" in these sentences would only make sense if there were an earlier comparison, such as "The second shower brought more relief than the first". As there is no such context here, "much respite" is clearly the intended expression for a single event of relief. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "most relief": This is the superlative form and would require a comparison with at least two other sources of relief; additionally, it changes the noun from "respite" to "relief".Option "severe drought": This is the opposite of what the sentence intends, because rain and respite from heat are positive, while drought is a negative condition.Option "No improvement": Incorrect, because "more respite" is not the most natural or grammatically precise expression in this context. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overlook the difference between absolute and comparative quantities and use "more" automatically to indicate intensity. Another common mistake is ignoring the uncountable nature of words like "respite" and "relief" when selecting quantifiers. To avoid such errors, ask yourself whether the sentence is comparing two situations or simply describing one. If it is only describing one event, avoid "more" unless the comparison is explicit, and prefer quantifiers like "much" where appropriate. Final Answer: The best improvement is much respite, so the corrected sentence is: The rain brought much respite from the heat.

Question 8

In this sentence improvement question, select the option that makes the sentence grammatically correct: He speaks so fast to be understood.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This grammar question tests your knowledge of degree expressions and result clauses in English. The original sentence "He speaks so fast to be understood" sounds unnatural because it uses "so" incorrectly with an infinitive. Competitive exams frequently test the difference between "so ... that" structures and "too ... to" structures, both of which express ideas about degree and consequence. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: He speaks so fast to be understood.- The goal is to express that his manner of speaking makes it impossible for others to understand him.- Options are: "very fast to be understood", "too fast to be understood", "too fast that he cannot be understood", and "No improvement".- Only one option uses the correct grammatical pattern. Concept / Approach: When we want to say that something is so extreme that it prevents a result from happening, English typically uses the "too ... to" pattern: "too fast to be understood", "too heavy to lift", "too late to change". The "so ... that" pattern requires the word "that" and a clause: "so fast that he cannot be understood". The original sentence incorrectly mixes "so" with an infinitive "to be understood". Therefore, the correction must either use "too ... to" or "so ... that" with a complete clause. Among the options, only "too fast to be understood" follows a fully correct structure. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the intended meaning: his speed of speaking prevents understanding.Step 2: Recall that for this idea we use "too + adjective/adverb + to + verb", which expresses an excessive degree.Step 3: Apply this pattern to "fast" and "understand": "too fast to be understood".Step 4: Check option "very fast to be understood": "very" expresses high degree but does not combine naturally with "to be understood" to express impossibility.Step 5: Check option "too fast that he cannot be understood": This incorrectly combines "too" with "that"; the standard pattern is "so ... that", not "too ... that".Step 6: Observe that "No improvement" cannot be correct because the original sentence is unidiomatic.Step 7: Conclude that "too fast to be understood" is the correct improvement. Verification / Alternative check: You can compare with familiar sentences: "The music was too loud to sleep", "The bag is too heavy to carry alone", "He spoke so fast that nobody could follow him." In all these examples, the patterns are either "too ... to" or "so ... that". Notice that we never say "so fast to be understood". Therefore, the corrected version, "He speaks too fast to be understood", is fully consistent with standard structures in English. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "very fast to be understood": The word "very" intensifies "fast" but does not create a result meaning with an infinitive, so the phrase is ungrammatical.Option "too fast that he cannot be understood": Combines "too" with "that", which is incorrect; it should be "so fast that he cannot be understood".Option "No improvement": Incorrect because the original sentence misuses "so" with "to be understood". Common Pitfalls: Many learners confuse the patterns "too ... to" and "so ... that" and mix the elements incorrectly. They may write "so fast to" or "too fast that", both of which sound wrong to native speakers. Another pitfall is overusing "very" in places where a result or consequence needs to be expressed. To avoid such mistakes, memorise the correct structures: "too + adjective/adverb + to + verb" for excess leading to impossibility, and "so + adjective/adverb + that + clause" for strong degree leading to a result. Final Answer: The correct improvement is too fast to be understood, so the sentence should read: He speaks too fast to be understood.

Question 9

In this sentence improvement question on pronouns and word order, select the option that makes the sentence correct: I and my parents live together.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests two important areas of English grammar: correct pronoun case and conventional word order in coordinated subjects. The original sentence "I and my parents live together" is understandable but not considered stylistically correct. In standard English, there is a preferred order for listing yourself and others, and the subject pronoun must be in the correct case when used before the verb. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: I and my parents live together.- The problem lies in the phrase "I and my parents".- Options are: "Me and my parents", "My parents and I", "My parents and me", and "No improvement".- The verb "live" clearly requires a plural subject consisting of the speaker plus the parents. Concept / Approach: There are two key rules. First, in a compound subject joined by "and", English style prefers to mention oneself last as a sign of politeness: "my parents and I", not "I and my parents". Second, when the pronoun is part of the subject, we must use the subject (nominative) form "I", not the object form "me". Therefore, the correct structure is "My parents and I", which respects both the case rule and the politeness convention. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that the phrase "I and my parents" functions as the subject of the verb "live".Step 2: Recall that subject pronouns in English are "I, we, you, he, she, they", while "me, us, him, her, them" are object pronouns.Step 3: Understand that in a compound subject, we must use the subject form "I", not "me".Step 4: Apply the politeness rule that one usually mentions oneself after others: "my parents and I", not "I and my parents".Step 5: Compare the options and see that only "My parents and I" satisfies both rules.Step 6: Confirm that the full corrected sentence "My parents and I live together" is grammatically and stylistically correct. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can test the sentence by removing "my parents" and checking what remains. If you choose "My parents and I live together", removing "my parents and" gives "I live together", which is correct in terms of pronoun case. If you choose "My parents and me live together", removing "my parents and" gives "me live together", which is incorrect because "me" cannot be used as a subject. This simple test confirms that "My parents and I" is the proper form. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Me and my parents": Uses the object pronoun "me" as part of the subject and puts the speaker first, both of which are considered incorrect or informal.Option "My parents and me": Contains the polite order but still uses the object pronoun "me" as part of the subject, which is grammatically wrong.Option "No improvement": Incorrect because the original order "I and my parents" is non standard and does not follow the usual style convention. Common Pitfalls: Learners often use "me and my friends" or "me and my family" in casual speech, and this habit sometimes appears in exam answers. While it is common in informal conversation, standard written English requires subject pronouns in subject position and polite ordering of names. Another pitfall is focusing only on politeness and choosing "My parents and me", which fixes the order but not the pronoun case. Always check both aspects: correct pronoun form and correct ordering. Final Answer: The correct improvement is My parents and I, so the sentence should read: My parents and I live together.

Question 10

Based on the passage about mission statements and personal leadership, what should a personal mission statement begin with according to the author?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This reading comprehension question is based on a passage about personal mission statements and the idea of being the Chief Executive Officer of your own life. The author explains that just like successful companies have mission statements, individuals should also define how they want to live, what kind of person they want to become, and what values will guide their decisions. You are asked to identify what the author says a personal mission statement should begin with. Given Data / Assumptions: - The passage describes the importance of a clear personal mission in the modern knowledge era.- It emphasizes living according to values rather than only chasing titles, possessions, or promotions.- The author explicitly describes how he began his own mission statement, focusing on awareness, uniqueness, and concern for others.- Near the end, the passage directly instructs readers on how to frame their own mission statement. Concept / Approach: To answer this type of question, you must carefully read the lines in which the author gives direct advice. The passage says that you can frame your mission statement "starting with your core values, working outward to your material desires and financial needs." This clearly tells us that the foundation of the mission must be values, not possessions or monetary goals. The other options mention things the author specifically warns against focusing on first, such as what you want to own or your next promotion. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Revisit the lines near the end of the passage where the author explains how to frame a mission statement.Step 2: Note the exact instruction: begin with core values, then expand to material desires and financial needs.Step 3: Compare this guidance with the answer choices: "Your core values", "What you want to acquire", "Your monetary ambitions", and "Your next promotion".Step 4: Observe that the passage criticises focusing only on what you want to own, the title on your door, or the next promotion.Step 5: Recognise that "Your core values" is the only option that matches the explicit advice given by the author.Step 6: Select "Your core values" as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can paraphrase the relevant sentence from the passage: it says that your mission statement should start from the inside (values) and move outward toward external achievements (material desires and financial needs). This inside out progression confirms that values are the starting point. If the mission started with what you want to acquire or your next promotion, it would contradict the whole message of the passage, which is to focus on who you become rather than what you own. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "What you want to acquire": The passage warns against starting with possessions or what you want to own; these come later, after values.Option "Your monetary ambitions": Financial needs and ambitions are mentioned but only as outer layers after core values are defined.Option "Your next promotion": The passage explicitly says that a mission statement is about more than the title you want to see on your door or your next promotion. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates skim the passage and remember that material desires and financial needs are mentioned but forget the order in which they should be considered. Another pitfall is assuming that a mission statement must start with external success indicators, such as promotions or wealth, because that is common in goal setting. However, the author is making the opposite argument: true success begins with clearly defined values. Always pay close attention to sequencing words like "starting with" and "working outward to", as they are critical for answering such questions correctly. Final Answer: According to the passage, a personal mission statement should begin with your core values and then move outward to material desires and financial needs.

Question 11

According to the passage on personal mission statements, what mission does the narrator say he was created to fulfil in relation to his associates, clients, friends, and family?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is based on a passage in which the narrator explains how he framed his own mission statement. He describes his awareness of the uniqueness of his associates, clients, friends, and family, and then states what he believes he was created to do. Your task is to identify, from the options given, the mission that the narrator explicitly claims for himself in the passage. Given Data / Assumptions: - The narrator talks about recognising the uniqueness of the people around him.- He mentions treating that uniqueness with loving concern.- He then describes his purpose as leading himself and others to understand winwin relationships.- He adds that these relationships should be used to improve the lives of all persons with whom he comes into contact. Concept / Approach: Reading comprehension questions like this require you to focus on the exact wording of the passage rather than guessing based on general impressions. The narrator does not say he wants to criticise, discourage, or illtreat anyone. Instead, he emphasises understanding and using winwin relationships to bring positive change. Among the answer choices, the one that matches this idea is the option that mentions improving the lives of his associates and others he interacts with. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the key lines in the passage describing the narrator's personal mission.Step 2: Note that he speaks about being created to lead himself and others to understand winwin relationships.Step 3: Observe that he says these relationships should be used to improve the lives of all persons with whom he comes into contact.Step 4: Compare this idea to the options: discouraging associates, improving lives, being aware of strengths and weaknesses, or illtreating others.Step 5: Clearly see that only "To improve the lives of all his associates" captures the positive, life enhancing goal described in the passage.Step 6: Select that option as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, you can paraphrase the narrator's self description: he wants to be aware of people's uniqueness, treat them with loving concern, and lead them to understand and apply winwin relationships so that everyone's life improves. This entire description is constructive and supportive. None of the negative options such as discouraging or illtreating others fit this picture. Also, the passage goes beyond merely knowing people's strengths and weaknesses; it focuses on using relationships actively for mutual benefit and improvement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "To discourage his friends and associates in every endeavour.": Directly contradicts the positive and supportive tone of the passage.Option "To be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of his friends.": Partially related because he wants to recognise uniqueness, but it misses the key action of improving lives through winwin relationships.Option "To illtreat all.": Completely opposite of the narrator's stated desire to treat others with loving concern and to help them. Common Pitfalls: Some students may focus only on one part of the mission statement, such as awareness of uniqueness, and choose an option that mentions strengths and weaknesses, missing the broader purpose described. Others may not read carefully and might assume that any positive sounding option is correct. In comprehension questions, always match the option with the specific wording and purpose given in the passage. Pay close attention to phrases like "improve the lives of all persons with whom I come into contact", which clearly points to the correct option here. Final Answer: The narrator's mission, as stated in the passage, is to improve the lives of all his associates and other people with whom he comes into contact by using winwin relationships.

Question 12

In the context of the passage on personal mission statements, what does a "winwin" relationship mean?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question comes from a passage discussing mission statements and the idea of winwin relationships. The author emphasises that his purpose is to help people understand such relationships and to use them to improve lives. To answer correctly, you need to understand what "winwin" means in personal and professional interactions, especially in contrast with winlose or loselose situations. Given Data / Assumptions: - The passage uses the term "winwin relationships" in a positive, constructive sense.- It suggests that such relationships can improve the lives of all persons involved.- The options describe different interpretations: everyone wins, no challenges, mutual benefit, or merely friendly competition.- The key idea is cooperation that benefits all sides. Concept / Approach: In self development and leadership literature, the term "winwin" is widely used to describe situations, agreements, or relationships in which all parties gain something of value. It contrasts with "winlose" (where one side benefits at the expense of the other) and "loselose" (where both suffer). A winwin relationship is therefore not defined by the absence of challenge or by friendly competition alone, but by fairness and mutual benefit. The passage aligns with this standard meaning when it talks about using winwin relationships to improve the lives of everyone involved. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall the typical definition of a winwin situation: both sides benefit from the outcome.Step 2: Link this to the passage, which says that winwin relationships are used to improve the lives of all persons with whom the narrator comes into contact.Step 3: Examine option "Every one must win always": this is too absolute and unrealistic; winwin is not about perfection but about balance and fairness.Step 4: Consider option "There are no challenges": this is incorrect, because winwin relationships can still involve difficulties and negotiations.Step 5: Check option "The relationship is beneficial to both parties": this accurately matches the common definition of winwin.Step 6: Evaluate option "The competition is friendly": friendly competition may or may not be winwin; it does not guarantee mutual benefit.Step 7: Select "The relationship is beneficial to both parties" as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by thinking of examples: in a winwin business agreement, both companies gain value; in a winwin negotiation, both sides feel that their key interests have been respected. These examples show that the central idea is mutual benefit. The passage supports this by linking winwin relationships to improving the lives of "all persons" involved, not just one side. No other option clearly reflects this cooperative and mutually beneficial nature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Every one must win always": Unrealistic and not implied by the passage; winwin is about fairness, not about winning every possible situation.Option "There are no challenges": Misleading, because even in winwin relationships people may face difficulties that they resolve together.Option "The competition is friendly": Addresses tone but not the core feature of mutual benefit; friendly competition can still have winners and losers. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates confuse "winwin" with the idea that life becomes easy or challenge free, which is not accurate. Others associate it only with friendly feelings, ignoring the practical aspect of each side gaining real value. To avoid these errors, always connect "winwin" with mutual benefit and shared success. In exams, any option that clearly states that both sides benefit is usually the correct interpretation of "winwin". Final Answer: A "winwin" relationship, in the context of the passage, is one in which the relationship is beneficial to both parties and improves the lives of everyone involved.

Question 13

According to the passage on personal mission statements, what key components are suggested for constructing a personal mission statement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This reading comprehension question focuses on a specific instruction in the passage about how to frame a personal mission statement. The author explains that a mission statement should describe how you want to live, who you want to be, and what kind of impact you want to have. Towards the end, he gives a clear recipe for building such a statement, moving from inner values outward to external goals. Given Data / Assumptions: - The passage talks about mission statements for individuals, not just for organisations.- It highlights the importance of awareness of values, relationships, and the lives of others.- The author explicitly states that you can frame your mission statement starting with your core values and then moving outward.- The options present different combinations of elements that might be included in a mission statement. Concept / Approach: The key line in the passage is that you can frame your mission statement "starting with your core values, working outward to your material desires and financial needs." This provides a three part structure: values at the centre, material desires in the middle, and financial needs on the outer layer. The correct option must reflect this sequence of elements. Other options mention attitudes, knowledge, love, academic qualifications, joy, or self confidence, but these are not given as the formal components in the author's explicit instructions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Locate the sentence in the passage that describes how to frame your mission statement.Step 2: Note the exact pattern: start with core values, then move to material desires, and then to financial needs.Step 3: Compare each answer choice with this pattern.Step 4: Option "Corevalues, material desires, financial needs" matches the exact sequence specified in the passage.Step 5: Option "Winwin attitude, financial needs, knowledge" mentions attitude and knowledge but not the complete structure.Step 6: Options with academic qualifications, love, joy, or self confidence are not framed as the core structural elements in the passage.Step 7: Select the option that repeats the sequence given by the author. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by summarising the author's recommendation in your own words: he suggests beginning with who you want to be and what you believe in (core values), then considering what material things you desire, and finally considering your financial needs. This is an inside out design process. None of the other options mention values clearly followed by both material desires and financial needs. Therefore, the only option consistent with the passage is the one that lists these three elements in order. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "Winwin attitude, financial needs, knowledge": Although winwin relationships and knowledge are mentioned in the passage, they are not described as the structural components of a mission statement.Option "Academic qualifications, love, material desires": Academic qualifications and love appear in many people's lives, but the passage does not present them as the basic framework for a mission statement.Option "Corevalues, joy, self confidence": Values are indeed central, but the passage specifically pairs them with material desires and financial needs, not joy and self confidence. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose answers that sound positive or inspiring without checking whether they match the exact wording of the passage. Another common error is to confuse examples or side points with the main structural advice. When answering such questions, always look for precise alignment with the author's sequence of ideas, especially when the passage uses expressions like "starting with" and "working outward to", which clearly show the intended order. Final Answer: According to the passage, the suggested components of a mission statement are core values, material desires, and financial needs, in that inside out order.

Question 14

According to the passage about personal mission statements, who is responsible for designing and framing an individual's personal mission?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This reading comprehension question focuses on the central idea that in the knowledge era, each person is like the Chief Executive Officer of his or her own life. The passage argues that just as organisations craft mission statements, individuals should also define their own missions. The question asks who is responsible for designing this personal mission, according to the author. Given Data / Assumptions: - The passage compares a person to the Chief Executive Officer of his or her own life.- It describes how the narrator framed his own mission statement.- The author encourages readers to create their own mission statements beginning with core values.- There is no suggestion that companies, families, or friends should dictate an individual's mission. Concept / Approach: The author uses the metaphor of a Chief Executive Officer to emphasise personal responsibility and leadership. Being the CEO of your life means you are in charge of your vision, mission, and decisions. Therefore, the only logical answer must be that the individual is responsible for designing and owning the personal mission. While others such as friends, family, or employers may influence or support, they do not define the mission for you in the author's framework. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that the passage states: "As the Chief Executive Officer of your own life... you need a mission and a mission statement."Step 2: Understand that this metaphor indicates self leadership and self direction.Step 3: Note that the narrator provides his own mission statement as an example, showing individual design and responsibility.Step 4: Examine the options: a Chief Executive Officer, the family and friends, the Individual, or the company.Step 5: Recognise that "a Chief Executive Officer" in a company is responsible for an organisational mission, not a personal one, in general usage.Step 6: See that "The Individual" is the only option that directly matches the idea of being the CEO of your own life.Step 7: Choose "The Individual" as the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, imagine how the author would answer the question directly: he would say that each person must personally decide on their mission statement by starting from core values and moving outward. The examples and the motivational tone both emphasise personal responsibility rather than external control. Neither the company nor family and friends are presented as the designers of your mission; they are simply part of the context in which you live out your mission. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option "A Chief Executive Officer": Refers to organisational leadership; the passage uses the CEO metaphor to describe the individual, not an external corporate leader.Option "The family and friends": They may influence or support you, but the passage does not state that they design your personal mission.Option "The company": The company creates its own mission statement, but the passage encourages individuals to create their own, independent of the organisation. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may be misled by the repeated phrase "Chief Executive Officer" and think that the answer must be an external CEO or company leader. Others may assume that family and friends shape a person's life mission and choose that option. To avoid these errors, always look at how metaphors are used in context. Here, "Chief Executive Officer of your own life" clearly means that you, the individual, hold that role for yourself. Final Answer: According to the passage, the Individual is responsible for designing and framing a personal mission statement for his or her own life.

Question 15

In this error spotting question, identify the part of the sentence that contains a grammatical error: My twin (A) / is five minutes younger (B) / than myself. (C) / No error (D)

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of comparative structures and pronoun case in English. The sentence given is "My twin is five minutes younger than myself." You must decide which part, if any, contains an error. This type of question is common in competitive exams and helps to check whether you can recognise subtle mistakes in otherwise simple sentences. Given Data / Assumptions: - The sentence is divided into four parts: (A) My twin, (B) is five minutes younger, (C) than myself., (D) No error.- The meaning is that the speaker's twin sibling is five minutes younger than the speaker.- The comparison is between "my twin" and the speaker.- The phrase "than myself" is suspicious and needs careful examination. Concept / Approach: In comparative constructions using "than", English normally uses the subject pronoun "I" or the object pronoun "me" according to the structure, but "myself" is only used for emphasis or reflexive purposes, not as a simple object of comparison. The most natural and correct forms here would be "than I am" or "than me". In standard exam grammar, "than myself" is considered incorrect because "myself" should not be used where a simple pronoun would suffice. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the structure of comparison: "My twin is younger than ...".Step 2: Recognise that we are comparing two people: my twin and me.Step 3: Recall that the usual forms are "younger than I am" or "younger than me", not "younger than myself".Step 4: Check each part of the sentence: Part A ("My twin") is a correct subject phrase.Step 5: Part B ("is five minutes younger") correctly expresses the comparative degree and the amount of difference.Step 6: Part C ("than myself") is incorrect because "myself" is reflexive and should not be used here.Step 7: Conclude that the error is in part C. Verification / Alternative check: You can verify by substituting correct forms: "My twin is five minutes younger than I am" or "My twin is five minutes younger than me" both sound natural and are accepted in modern English. In contrast, "My twin is five minutes younger than myself" sounds overly formal and is treated as incorrect in standard exam grammar. Also, reflexive pronouns such as "myself", "yourself", "himself", and "themselves" are usually used when the subject and object of the verb are the same person, for example, "I hurt myself", which is not the case here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A ("My twin"): Correct as the subject of the sentence.Option B ("is five minutes younger"): Correct, as it properly describes the comparative age and includes the expression of time difference.Option D ("No error"): Incorrect, because there is a clear error in part C as explained. Common Pitfalls: Many learners overuse reflexive pronouns like "myself" in an attempt to sound formal or polite, leading to sentences such as "My friend and myself went to the market" or "He is older than myself", which are incorrect in standard grammar. Exams often exploit this tendency by including such forms in error spotting questions. To avoid these mistakes, remember that reflexive pronouns should only be used when the subject and object refer to the same person or for strong emphasis, not simply after "than". Final Answer: The error lies in part C, because the phrase should be "than me" or "than I am", not "than myself".

Question 16

Rearrange the following sentence parts to form a correct and meaningful sentence about Tenzing Norgay creating history: Tenzing Norgay created history P – to conquer Mount Everest Q – became the first men R – on May 29, 1953, when he and Sir Edmund …

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question tests your ability to rearrange jumbled sentence parts into a single coherent and grammatically correct sentence. The context is the famous mountaineering achievement of Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary, who together reached the summit of Mount Everest. To answer correctly, you must understand both the logical order of events and the normal English sentence structure that links time, action, and result. Given Data / Assumptions: - Fixed opening: Tenzing Norgay created history - Part P: to conquer Mount Everest - Part Q: became the first men - Part R: on May 29, 1953, when he and Sir Edmund Hillary - Exactly one arrangement gives a natural, meaningful sentence. Concept / Approach: In jumbled sentence questions, the safest method is to identify the main clause, then attach time expressions and purpose clauses in a logical order. Here, the introduction Tenzing Norgay created history should be immediately followed by a time phrase that tells us when this happened, then by who was involved and what they did, and finally by why that action was historically significant. The parts must join smoothly without breaking basic English syntax. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: The phrase on May 29, 1953, when he and Sir Edmund Hillary (R) clearly describes the time and the two people involved, so it should come soon after the opening clause. Step 2: After introducing both climbers, we need the main action they performed. That information is in Q: became the first men. Step 3: Finally, we explain what exactly they were first to do. That is given in P: to conquer Mount Everest. Step 4: Combine in order: Tenzing Norgay created history on May 29, 1953, when he and Sir Edmund Hillary became the first men to conquer Mount Everest. Step 5: This order corresponds to RQP, which matches option D. Verification / Alternative check: Read the complete sentence aloud: Tenzing Norgay created history on May 29, 1953, when he and Sir Edmund Hillary became the first men to conquer Mount Everest. The sentence is clear, chronologically ordered, and grammatically sound. If you try another pattern, such as QRP, you would get Tenzing Norgay created history became the first men on May 29, 1953, when he and Sir Edmund Hillary to conquer Mount Everest, which is obviously ungrammatical and awkward. Why Other Options Are Wrong: QRP places became the first men immediately after created history, but then leaves the purpose phrase to conquer Mount Everest at the end in an incorrect position. QPR and PRQ similarly break the natural flow between the time clause and the main action. They produce sentences where phrases do not connect smoothly, leading to confusion about when and how the achievement occurred. Common Pitfalls: Many learners try to join parts based only on local connections such as to conquer Mount Everest directly after became the first men, without paying attention to where the time clause should appear. A reliable strategy is first to locate any time phrase (here, on May 29, 1953) and attach it early, then link the main verb phrase and finally any infinitive of purpose. This method reduces guesswork and helps in many similar rearrangement questions. Final Answer: RQP is the correct order of the parts and corresponds to option D.

Question 17

In the following idiom and phrase question, select the option that best expresses the meaning of the expression “a piece of cake”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question tests your understanding of a very common English idiom: a piece of cake. Idioms are fixed expressions whose meanings cannot usually be guessed directly from the literal meanings of the individual words. Knowing idioms is essential for understanding everyday English conversations, films, and reading passages in competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: - Idiom: a piece of cake. - Four alternative meanings are provided. - You must select the meaning that matches real-world, idiomatic usage. Concept / Approach: Literally, a piece of cake is a small portion of a sweet dessert. However, in idiomatic English, when someone says that a task was a piece of cake, they mean it was very easy to do. The expression emphasises that the effort required felt as simple and pleasant as eating cake. Therefore, the correct option must convey the meanings easy or effortless rather than anything connected to hunger, sharing, or remembering food. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall common sentences such as The exam was a piece of cake or Driving this car is a piece of cake. Step 2: Notice that in such sentences the idiom clearly means very easy or simple. Step 3: Examine option D, Something easily achieved, and see that it directly expresses this sense. Step 4: Check option A, which talks about the taste of food to a hungry person. This is unrelated to difficulty level. Step 5: Observe that option B refers to an unfairly small share, which is connected with division, not ease. Step 6: Option C focuses on memory of tasty food, which again is not about difficulty or simplicity. Therefore, D is the only correct explanation. Verification / Alternative check: Insert each option into a sample sentence in place of the idiom. For example, The exam was something easily achieved makes clear sense, while The exam was getting a smaller share than expected is meaningless. This test confirms that the idiom describes how easy a task feels, not anything to do with food portions or hunger. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A incorrectly interprets the idiom literally in terms of taste and hunger. Option B introduces the idea of unfair distribution, which belongs to expressions like a raw deal. Option C incorrectly treats the idiom as a statement about memory and food pleasure. None of these options captures the central idea of ease and effortlessness that the idiom actually conveys. Common Pitfalls: Many learners get confused when idioms involve food or money, because they try to attach a literal explanation. The best way to master idioms like a piece of cake is to memorise them with example sentences and remember the feeling they express. Here, that feeling is that a task requires little effort and is almost enjoyable. Recognising this will help you answer many idiom questions quickly. Final Answer: Something easily achieved is the correct meaning of the idiom a piece of cake.

Question 18

Select the one-word substitute that best expresses the meaning of the phrase “having or displaying an overly critical point of view”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This vocabulary question checks your ability to replace a descriptive phrase with a precise one-word substitute. The phrase given is having or displaying an overly critical point of view, which describes a negative attitude in which a person constantly judges others harshly. One-word substitutes are especially important in exams and formal writing because they allow you to express ideas concisely and accurately. Given Data / Assumptions: - Descriptive phrase: having or displaying an overly critical point of view. - Options: judgmental, to hallucinate, to contravene, expanse. - Only one word should match the meaning of the phrase. Concept / Approach: The adjective judgmental is commonly used in English to describe someone who tends to judge people and situations too quickly and often too harshly, focusing on perceived faults. The phrase overly critical directly matches this idea. The other options describe completely different concepts: hallucinate is to see or sense something that is not actually present, contravene means to break a law or rule, and expanse refers to a wide open area. Therefore, judgmental is the only option that expresses the intended personality trait. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the core meaning of the phrase: overly critical point of view. Step 2: Recall that judgmental is used in contexts like Stop being so judgmental toward others or She has a very judgmental attitude. Step 3: Compare this with to hallucinate, which belongs to medical or psychological contexts. Step 4: Note that to contravene is about disobeying laws or rules, not about criticism or attitudes. Step 5: Recognise that expanse is a noun used for wide areas, such as an expanse of desert. Step 6: Conclude that judgmental is the only option that fits the description. Verification / Alternative check: Insert judgmental back into the paraphrased definition: having or displaying a judgmental point of view means having or displaying an overly critical point of view. The match is almost exact in tone and usage. If you attempt the same with hallucinate, contravene, or expanse, the phrases become absurd or completely off-topic, which confirms that they are wrong choices. Why Other Options Are Wrong: To hallucinate refers to experiencing illusions or sensations that have no external cause, and it has nothing to do with being critical of others. To contravene talks about violating regulations or agreements. Expanse is a noun for a wide continuous area of land, sea, or sky. None of these words includes the idea of constant criticism or harsh judgement, so they cannot substitute the given phrase. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes get distracted by unfamiliar words and think that the most difficult word must be the answer. However, in one-word substitution questions, the correct answer is simply the one that matches the meaning, regardless of whether it is common or rare. A good strategy is to paraphrase each option in your own words and check whether it fits the original phrase without forcing the meaning. Final Answer: judgmental is the correct one-word substitute for the phrase having or displaying an overly critical point of view.

Question 19

Improve the bracketed part of the sentence by choosing the most appropriate option: “She (has fallen out with) the boy she was supposed to marry.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question tests your knowledge of phrasal verbs and correct tense usage in English. The sentence describes a change in a relationship: the woman has had a quarrel or disagreement with the boy she was supposed to marry. The phrase fall out with someone is a standard phrasal verb that means to have a serious disagreement and stop being friendly. You must decide whether the given bracketed phrase is correct or needs improvement. Given Data / Assumptions: - Original sentence: She has fallen out with the boy she was supposed to marry. - Bracketed part: has fallen out with. - The options change either the tense or the preposition or the full phrasal verb. - The context implies a relatively recent and still relevant break in the relationship. Concept / Approach: The phrasal verb fall out with means to quarrel and no longer be on good terms with someone. The present perfect tense has fallen out is used to describe an action that happened in the past but has a connection to the present situation. Since the relationship is likely still affected, present perfect is appropriate. The preposition with is required after fall out when we mention the person with whom the disagreement occurred. Therefore, the bracketed phrase is already correct, and no improvement is needed. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the phrasal verb in the sentence: fall out with someone. Step 2: Confirm its meaning: to argue with someone and stop being friendly. Step 3: Check the tense: has fallen is present perfect, which fits a recent event with present relevance. Step 4: Examine option A, fell out with, which changes the tense to simple past and loses the sense of present relevance. Step 5: Option B, has fallen out of, is incorrect because fall out of means physically fall from inside something, not quarrel. Step 6: Option C, has fallen in with, means to join a group or association, which is the opposite of a break in relations. Step 7: Therefore, option D, no improvement, is the correct choice. Verification / Alternative check: Replace the phrasal verb with a simple verb to confirm meaning: She has quarrelled with the boy she was supposed to marry. This matches the idea conveyed by has fallen out with. If we chose fell out with, the sentence would refer to a finished event without clear present relevance. If we chose has fallen in with, it would mean that she has joined the boy or his group, which contradicts the idea of a breakup. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A changes the tense in a way that slightly weakens the link to the current situation. Option B creates a completely different meaning related to motion out of a physical container. Option C expresses almost the opposite meaning of the original sentence. Hence, these options do not improve the sentence and would misrepresent the intended meaning. Common Pitfalls: Many learners are tempted to change tenses whenever they see has in a sentence, thinking that simple past is always safer. Others confuse similar sounding phrasal verbs like fall out with and fall in with. A good habit is to learn phrasal verbs with their fixed prepositions and meanings together, and to pay attention to tense only after the meaning is correctly identified. Final Answer: no improvement is correct because the phrase has fallen out with is already idiomatic and appropriate.

Question 20

Select the one-word substitute that best expresses the meaning of the phrase “obtain something by force, threats, or other unfair means”.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: This question checks your understanding of precise legal and ethical vocabulary through one-word substitutes. The phrase obtain something by force, threats, or other unfair means describes a serious wrongful act, often connected with crime and corruption. Your task is to match this description with the correct verb from the options, which is widely used in law, journalism, and formal writing. Given Data / Assumptions: - Descriptive phrase: obtain something by force, threats, or other unfair means. - Options: to regret, to extort, to resent, to encompass. - Only one option should describe the wrongful act of obtaining something under pressure. Concept / Approach: The verb extort means to obtain money, property, or advantages from someone by using force, threats, or other forms of unfair pressure. It is closely associated with criminal activities such as blackmail and corruption. The other options refer to completely different emotional or conceptual states: regret means to feel sorry about something, resent means to feel bitter or angry about being treated unfairly, and encompass means to include or surround. Thus, extort is the only verb that fits the given phrase exactly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Focus on the key elements in the phrase: obtain, force, threats, unfair means. Step 2: Recall that extortion is a crime and that to extort is the corresponding verb. Step 3: Compare the phrase to the dictionary idea of extort, which is to obtain something, especially money, by force or threats. Step 4: Check option A, to regret, which describes a feeling of sorrow, not an action of obtaining something. Step 5: Check option C, to resent, which refers to feeling bitter, not taking property from someone. Step 6: Check option D, to encompass, which means to include or cover, and is unrelated to coercion or threats. Step 7: Conclude that option B, to extort, matches the phrase perfectly. Verification / Alternative check: Consider example sentences: The criminals tried to extort money from the businessman or The official was charged with attempting to extort a bribe. In both sentences, extort clearly involves obtaining something through pressure or threats. Replacing extort with regret, resent, or encompass would destroy the meaning of the sentences, which confirms that these are not suitable synonyms. Why Other Options Are Wrong: To regret refers to emotional response after an action, not to wrongdoing itself. To resent describes anger at being treated unjustly, which may be a feeling someone has after another person extorts from them, but it is not the act. To encompass has a neutral sense of including or surrounding and does not carry any negative, criminal, or coercive meaning. Therefore, these options cannot substitute for the given phrase. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may confuse extort with exhort, which means to strongly urge or encourage. It is important to note the difference in spelling and meaning. Extort is negative and criminal, while exhort is positive or neutral and motivational. Keeping a small list of commonly confused pairs like this in your notes can help avoid mistakes in one-word substitution questions. Final Answer: To extort is the correct one-word substitute for obtaining something by force, threats, or other unfair means.

English Questions