Question 1

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the segment with the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “Scarcely had I finished washing the car than the master came and asked me to clean the floor of the house.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item targets the correlative pair used with “scarcely” or “hardly”. The idiomatic construction is “Scarcely/Hardly … when …”, not “than”. Parallel correlative accuracy is a common test point in competitive exams. Given Data / Assumptions: Inverted past perfect clause: “Scarcely had I finished …”. Consequence clause incorrectly introduced by “than”. Meaning: one action immediately followed another. Concept / Approach: Correct pairs: “No sooner … than …” and “Scarcely/Hardly … when …”. Mixing the pairs (e.g., “Scarcely … than …”) is incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the trigger adverb: “Scarcely”.Choose the correct connector: “when”.Correct sentence: “Scarcely had I finished washing the car when the master came and asked me to clean the floor of the house.” Verification / Alternative check: Using the other pair: “No sooner had I finished … than the master came …” also works but requires “no sooner … than …”. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and B are correct components of the inverted clause.D is fine.E is wrong because an error exists in C. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “scarcely … when” with “no sooner … than”; forgetting inversion with past perfect after these negative adverbs. Final Answer: than the master came

Question 2

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the segment with the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “The Head of the Department advised all the staff to not to indulge in gossip.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines infinitive usage and placement of “not”. In formal English, after “advised … to”, we use the infinitive “not to + verb”, not the doubled form “to not to”. Given Data / Assumptions: Matrix verb: “advised”. Infinitival complement expected: “to not to indulge” vs. “not to indulge”. We aim for standard, unambiguous phrasing. Concept / Approach: Correct sequence after verbs like “advise, tell, ask”: “to + not + base verb” → commonly realized as “not to + base verb”. Split infinitives can be acceptable in modern usage, but doubling “to” (“to not to”) is ungrammatical. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the complement: “advise [people] not to indulge in gossip”.Remove the redundant “to” before “not”.Correct sentence: “The Head of the Department advised all the staff not to indulge in gossip.” Verification / Alternative check: Paraphrase with a gerund: “advised … against indulging in gossip” — also grammatical, confirming the intended prohibition. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, B, and D are fine; D uses a standard collocation “indulge in”.E is wrong because C contains a clear error. Common Pitfalls: Inserting “to” twice; confusing the acceptable split “to not indulge” (stylistic) with the incorrect “to not to indulge”. Final Answer: to not to

Question 3

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the segment with the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “As it was Ramesh's first interview he dressed him in his most formal suit.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests pronoun reference and reflexive forms. When the subject and the object of “dress” refer to the same person, English requires the reflexive pronoun “himself/herself/themselves,” not the ordinary object pronoun “him/her/them”. Given Data / Assumptions: Subject: “he” (Ramesh). Verb: “dressed”. Object given: “him”. Context implies the same person is subject and object (Ramesh dressing Ramesh). Concept / Approach: Reflexive pronoun rule: when the subject acts on itself, use “-self”/“-selves”. Alternatively, omit the object: “he dressed in …” (intransitive use). Step-by-Step Solution: Detect coreference: “he” and “him” both refer to Ramesh.Apply reflexive: replace “him” with “himself”.Insert a comma after the introductory clause for better punctuation: “As it was Ramesh’s first interview, he dressed himself in his most formal suit.” Verification / Alternative check: Alternative phrasing: “Since it was Ramesh’s first interview, he wore his most formal suit.” The meaning is preserved, confirming the needed correction is the pronoun form. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A is fine (possessive with apostrophe). C and D are correct modifiers of “suit”.E is wrong because there is a pronoun error in B. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting reflexives with self-directed actions; overlooking optional punctuation after a long initial clause. Final Answer: first interview he dressed him

Question 4

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: Developmental activities of / the government come / to a standstill due / to paucity of funds.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item asks you to spot a grammatical error, if any, in a sentence split into segments. The sentence is about public finance and uses standard grammatical structures, including subject–verb agreement, preposition choice, and idiomatic expressions. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is plural: “Developmental activities”. Predicate verb phrase is “come to a standstill”. The expression “due to paucity of funds” is intended to state the cause. Standard formal Indian English is acceptable (e.g., “paucity of funds”). Concept / Approach: Check each chunk for agreement and idiom. Ensure the plural subject takes a plural verb, verify the causal preposition “due to,” and see whether any article is obligatorily required before “paucity.” In formal usage, “paucity of funds” can be used without an article, and “come to a standstill” is idiomatic. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “Developmental activities of” correctly introduces a noun phrase that will be completed by “the government.”B: “the government come” maintains plural agreement: activities … come.C: “to a standstill due” is part of the fixed expression “come to a standstill” followed by cause.D: “to paucity of funds.” is idiomatic; “due to paucity of funds” is acceptable in formal English. Verification / Alternative check: A fully edited version might add an optional article: “due to a paucity of funds.” However, omission does not make it incorrect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, B, C, and D are all grammatically sound; none contains a clear error, so “No error.” is the correct choice. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking optional articles (“a” before “paucity”) as mandatory; misidentifying plural agreement. Final Answer: No error.

Question 5

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: Of the two / sisters / Meena is / the elder.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks correct comparative forms when comparing exactly two people. The sentence is divided into four parts; your task is to find an error if one exists. Given Data / Assumptions: The comparison involves exactly two sisters. Standard rule: use “the elder” or “the older” for two; “eldest/oldest” is reserved for three or more in a group (especially within a family). Word order and agreement also matter. Concept / Approach: When comparing two, “elder/older” is correct. The structure “Of the two sisters, Meena is the elder” is idiomatic and grammatical. Punctuation (comma after the prepositional phrase) is optional in exam style and does not impact correctness. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “Of the two” correctly signals a comparison between two items.B: “sisters” completes the object of the preposition.C: “Meena is” is a correct subject–linking verb sequence.D: “the elder.” is precisely the correct comparative form when there are two sisters. Verification / Alternative check: Equivalent form: “Meena is the older (of the two).” Both are acceptable; no grammatical error exists. Why Other Options Are Wrong: None of the segments contains an error; therefore “No error.” is correct. Common Pitfalls: Using “eldest” with two items; believing “elder” requires an explicit “of the two” at the end (it is already present at the start). Final Answer: No error.

Question 6

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: I was to about / go out of my house / when it suddenly / started raining.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem tests the fixed expression “be about to + verb” to indicate an action on the point of occurring. The sentence is split into four parts; find the fragment that breaks the idiom. Given Data / Assumptions: The intended meaning is “I was about to go out … when it suddenly started raining.” We must preserve correct word order and infinitive structure. Concept / Approach: The correct pattern is “be about to + base verb.” The fragment “was to about” misorders “about” and “to,” and incorrectly uses “to” detached from its verb. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “I was to about” — wrong order. It must be “I was about to”.B: “go out of my house” — grammatical and idiomatic; “leave my house” would also be fine.C: “when it suddenly” — sets up the subordinate clause; acceptable.D: “started raining.” — correct past-tense verb phrase. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected: “I was about to go out of my house when it suddenly started raining.” This reads naturally and fits the intended meaning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B, C, and D are fine; only A breaks the fixed idiom. Common Pitfalls: Placing “about” after “to”; omitting the base verb after “to.” Final Answer: I was to about

Question 7

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: I am pleased to sanction / one special increment / to all the employees / with this month.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item checks prepositional phrasing in formal administrative English. The sentence announces a pay increment and includes a time reference. Given Data / Assumptions: “Sanction one special increment” is a formal, acceptable collocation. Time of effect needs a standard phrase like “with effect from …”. Audience expects clear official wording. Concept / Approach: In formal notices, the correct time expression is “with effect from this month” or “effective this month.” The fragment “with this month” is not idiomatic in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “I am pleased to sanction” — correct register and structure.B: “one special increment” — grammatical noun phrase.C: “to all the employees” — correct prepositional object.D: “with this month.” — unidiomatic; should be “with effect from this month” or “effective this month.” Verification / Alternative check: Revised version: “I am pleased to sanction one special increment to all the employees with effect from this month.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: A–C are fine; D contains the only idiomatic error. Common Pitfalls: Using “with this month” instead of “from this month,” “effective this month,” or “with effect from …”. Final Answer: with this month.

Question 8

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: While Mahendra was away / on a long official tour / his office receive an important letter / which was marked 'Urgent'.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This test item focuses on tense consistency and subject–verb agreement in a narrative past context. The sentence is segmented; identify the incorrect part. Given Data / Assumptions: Main time frame: past (“was away”). Another past event: receiving a letter. Formal quotation style around “Urgent.” Concept / Approach: Maintain the simple past for events situated in the past narrative. The verb in Part C must be “received,” not “receive.” Step-by-Step Solution: A: “While Mahendra was away” — correct past progressive set-up.B: “on a long official tour” — correct prepositional phrase.C: “his office receive an important letter” — error: base form after a past context; correct form is “received.”D: “which was marked 'Urgent'.” — correct passive and quotation formatting. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected: “While Mahendra was away on a long official tour, his office received an important letter which was marked 'Urgent'.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only C breaks tense consistency; the others are acceptable. Common Pitfalls: Dropping the -ed ending in past narrative; confusion between present simple and past simple. Final Answer: his office receive an important letter

Question 9

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: No country can long endure / if its foundations / were not laid deep / in the material prosperity.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence tests tense and mood consistency in a conditional-like statement of general truth. Identify the fragment that conflicts with the modal “can.” Given Data / Assumptions: The main clause uses present-time general truth: “can long endure.” The if-clause should align with a general condition, not a specific past-time event. Prepositional phrase “in material prosperity” is acceptable though “on” is also common with “foundations.” Concept / Approach: With “can” in a timeless truth, the conditional clause should take present form: “if its foundations are not laid deep …” Using “were” suggests a mismatched past narrative. Therefore Part C is erroneous. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “No country can long endure” — correct modal + base verb.B: “if its foundations” — introduces the conditional subject; fine.C: “were not laid deep” — wrong for general truth; should be “are not laid deep” or “have not been laid deep.”D: “in the material prosperity.” — article “the” is optional and often dropped; not the key error. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected: “No country can long endure if its foundations are not laid deep in material prosperity.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only C violates tense–mood consistency; A, B, and D are acceptable in exam usage. Common Pitfalls: Mixing a general-truth main clause with a past-tense conditional; over-focusing on minor prepositional preferences. Final Answer: were not laid deep

Question 10

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: Rajesh was expecting / a telegram from his uncle / which would inform / him whether he went or not.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence examines tense choice in an indirect question expressing a future decision or permission. You must identify the incorrect segment. Given Data / Assumptions: Main clause is past progressive: “was expecting.” The telegram's content would determine a future course of action for Rajesh. Concept / Approach: After “whether,” when the meaning is about a future possibility relative to the past viewpoint, use “would go” or “should go,” not simple past “went.” Thus Part D is wrong; it should read “whether he would go or not.” Step-by-Step Solution: A: Past progressive sets expectation in the past.B: Prepositional phrase is fine.C: “which would inform” is correct for future-in-the-past.D: “him whether he went or not.” — incorrect tense for intended meaning; replace with “whether he would go or not.” Verification / Alternative check: Rewritten: “Rajesh was expecting a telegram from his uncle which would inform him whether he would go or not.” This matches sequence of tenses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only D contains the tense error; A–C are correctly formed. Common Pitfalls: Using simple past after “whether” when the intended time is future relative to the past reference point. Final Answer: him whether he went or not.

Question 11

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: I see you / in Kanpur / during my next visit / in the month of May.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks future-time reference and appropriate tense selection in a plan or promise. Identify the incorrect fragment. Given Data / Assumptions: The speaker intends a future action (next visit, in May). Standard English requires a future form or a present-progressive plan, not simple present. Concept / Approach: For future arrangements, use “I will/shall see you …” or “I am going to see you …” or “I am seeing you …” (scheduled). The simple present “I see you” does not convey intended futurity here, hence it is the error. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “I see you” — should be “I will see you” or “I shall see you.”B: “in Kanpur” — correct place complement.C: “during my next visit” — correct time-frame phrase.D: “in the month of May.” — acceptable formal time phrase. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected sentence: “I will see you in Kanpur during my next visit in the month of May.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: B–D are fine; only A fails to express the intended future time. Common Pitfalls: Overusing simple present for promises or appointments. Final Answer: I see you

Question 12

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: He ought / not have / done such a / filthy thing.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item tests the correct construction with the modal “ought to.” The sentence is split into four parts; pick the incorrect fragment. Given Data / Assumptions: “Ought to” must be followed by a bare infinitive. In perfect infinitive constructions, use “ought not to have + past participle.” Concept / Approach: The fragment “not have” is missing “to.” The correct negative is “ought not to have done …”. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “He ought” — start of a modal phrase; expects “to.”B: “not have” — error; should be “not to have.”C: “done such a” — correct determiner phrase with past participle.D: “filthy thing.” — grammatical object phrase. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected: “He ought not to have done such a filthy thing.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only B contains the structural omission; A, C, and D are fine in context. Common Pitfalls: Dropping “to” after “ought,” especially in negatives and questions. Final Answer: not have

Question 13

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: We have keep / our promise and / you can expect / a lot from us in future.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks auxiliary–verb combination and perfect aspect formation. The sentence also contains a time phrase that is acceptable but often improved in formal English. Given Data / Assumptions: The intended tense is present perfect or a promise; after “have,” a past participle is required. “In future” is understood in Indian English; “in the future” is more idiomatic internationally, but not the key error here. Concept / Approach: Combine auxiliary “have” with the past participle “kept” to form present perfect. Therefore Part A is incorrect as it uses the base form “keep.” Step-by-Step Solution: A: “We have keep” — wrong; should be “We have kept.”B: “our promise and” — correct connective phrase.C: “you can expect” — correct modal construction.D: “a lot from us in future.” — acceptable; can be improved to “in the future.” Verification / Alternative check: Revised: “We have kept our promise and you can expect a lot from us in the future.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only A violates the auxiliary + participle rule; B–D are grammatically sound within exam norms. Common Pitfalls: Using base form after “have/has”; overlooking article usage in time phrases. Final Answer: We have keep

Question 14