Question 1

(solve as per the direction given above)

Accepted Answer

No error.

Question 2

(solve as per the direction given above)

Accepted Answer

has ever sung

Question 3

(solve as per the direction given above)

Accepted Answer

was saying about heart ailments

Question 4

Spot the grammatical error in the sentence. Select the part (A–D) that contains an error; if the sentence is correct, choose ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: An anti-extortion cell is opened by the district police headquarter six months ago as a precautionar…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This error-spotting item checks proper tense selection for past-time references and awareness of collocations in formal administrative English. The phrase ‘‘six months ago’’ fixes the time in the past and therefore requires a past tense in the main clause. Given Data / Assumptions: The event (opening a cell) happened ‘‘six months ago’’ (completed past time). Current sentence uses simple present passive ‘‘is opened’’ in part A. Other phrases are typical of government reports. Concept / Approach: When a finished action is anchored by a past-time adverbial like ‘‘ago,’’ we use simple past. In passive voice, the form is ‘‘was/were + past participle.’’ Using present passive with ‘‘ago’’ is ungrammatical. Also, ‘‘police headquarters’’ is a noun that often remains invariant in number; however, the key tested error is tense in A. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the time marker: ‘‘six months ago’’ = past, completed.Match tense: present passive ‘‘is opened’’ → incorrect with ‘‘ago’’.Correct form: ‘‘was opened’’ (simple past passive).Acceptable recast: ‘‘An anti-extortion cell was opened by the district police headquarters six months ago as a precautionary measure.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Try replacing ‘‘ago’’ with ‘‘today’’ or ‘‘now’’; only then would ‘‘is opened’’ make sense. With ‘‘ago,’’ native usage strongly favors ‘‘was opened.’’ Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: ‘‘district police headquarter’’ is slightly awkward (‘‘headquarters’’ preferred), but the primary tested error is tense in A. C: The time phrase is correct and consistent. D: Idiomatic and acceptable. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring adverbials like ‘‘ago’’ and choosing present forms in passive constructions; over-focusing on nouns and missing the core tense error. Final Answer: An anti-extortion cell is opened

Question 5

Spot the grammatical/usage error. Select the part (A–D) that contains an error; if the sentence is correct, choose ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: Hindi and Marathi are different forms of the Sanskrit which were once spoken in almost every part of India.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks article usage with proper nouns (language names) and agreement within relative clauses. In standard English, names of languages generally take no article. Given Data / Assumptions: Language names: Hindi, Marathi, Sanskrit. Structure: ‘‘different forms of the Sanskrit…’’ Relative clause: ‘‘which were once spoken…’’ modifies ‘‘Sanskrit’’. Concept / Approach: We do not normally use the definite article with language names (e.g., ‘‘the English’’ means the people, not the language). Therefore, ‘‘of Sanskrit’’ is correct, not ‘‘of the Sanskrit.’’ The sentence also implies that Sanskrit itself ‘‘was’’ spoken; the test, however, asks you to select the single part with a clear error—here, the article in part B. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify improper article: ‘‘the Sanskrit’’ → remove ‘‘the’’.Better form: ‘‘different forms of Sanskrit’’.Optional refinement: ‘‘which was once spoken…’’ to align with singular ‘‘Sanskrit.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Compare with other languages: ‘‘forms of Latin,’’ ‘‘influenced by Greek,’’ never ‘‘the Latin’’ when referring to the language alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Fine as subject. C: ‘‘were’’ sounds off, but the clearest, conventional error is the article in B. D: Correct prepositional phrase. Common Pitfalls: Adding ‘‘the’’ before language names; overlooking that only one segment should be marked even if you can improve others. Final Answer: different forms of the Sanskrit

Question 6

Find the part that contains a grammatical error; choose ‘‘No error’’ if the sentence is correct. Sentence: Everyone is impress by his zeal and enthusiasm.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item tests correct past participle form in passive constructions with ‘‘be + past participle’’ and common collocation with the preposition ‘‘by.’’ Given Data / Assumptions: Structure intended: passive meaning ‘‘Everyone is impressed by…’’ Given form: ‘‘is impress by’’ (bare verb). Concept / Approach: In passive voice, use be + past participle (e.g., ‘‘is impressed’’). The noun ‘‘Everyone’’ is singular, so ‘‘is’’ is correct; the main error is the participle form ‘‘impress’’ instead of ‘‘impressed.’’ Step-by-Step Solution: Identify passive pattern: be + V3 required.Replace V1 ‘‘impress’’ with V3 ‘‘impressed’’.Correct sentence: ‘‘Everyone is impressed by his zeal and enthusiasm.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Try an active paraphrase: ‘‘His zeal and enthusiasm impress everyone.’’ Active uses base/agreeing verb; passive needs past participle. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: ‘‘Everyone is’’ is fine. C–D: Noun phrases are correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing base form with participle; forgetting agreement of ‘‘Everyone’’ (singular) and ‘‘is.’’ Final Answer: impress by

Question 7

Identify the erroneous segment; if none, choose ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: His father told me that though his son had worked very hard, but he had failed to make any mark in the examination.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests correct use of concessive conjunctions. In English, we do not pair ‘‘though/although’’ with ‘‘but’’; only one marker of contrast should be used. Given Data / Assumptions: Concessive opener: ‘‘though’’ already appears in the sentence. Second contrast marker ‘‘but’’ appears later. Concept / Approach: Use either ‘‘though/although … , …’’ or ‘‘… , but …’’ but not both together. Retain the concessive clause and remove ‘‘but’’ to avoid redundancy. Step-by-Step Solution: Locate concessive pair: ‘‘though’’ + ‘‘but’’ → incorrect pairing.Delete ‘‘but’’ to make a clean concessive structure.Correct version: ‘‘… that though his son had worked very hard, he had failed to make any mark in the examination.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Rephrase with ‘‘although’’ or switch to a simple ‘‘but’’ clause to see that a single contrast marker suffices. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A–C are grammatically fine and set up the concessive clause correctly; only D introduces the redundant ‘‘but.’’ Common Pitfalls: Transferring structures from other languages where double marking may be idiomatic; overemphasizing contrast with two conjunctions. Final Answer: but he had failed to make any mark in the examination.

Question 8

Choose the part containing the error; if none, select ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: The teacher promised that he will explain it if they come before school the following day.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests sequence of tenses in reported speech and conditional time clauses in formal English. Given Data / Assumptions: Reporting verb: ‘‘promised’’ (past). Reported content includes a future reference and a condition. Concept / Approach: With a past reporting verb, backshift is normally applied: ‘‘will’’ → ‘‘would.’’ In the conditional clause referring to a future-in-the-past situation, simple present ‘‘come’’ may appear in direct speech, but in reported speech after a past reporting verb, ‘‘came’’ is typically used when the time reference is anchored in the past plan. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify backshift: ‘‘promised’’ → change ‘‘will’’ to ‘‘would.’’Optional refinement: ‘‘if they came’’ fits the past-time plan.Corrected core: ‘‘… that he would explain it …’’ Verification / Alternative check: Compare direct speech: ‘‘He promised, ‘I will explain it if they come tomorrow.’ ’’ Reported: ‘‘He promised that he would explain it if they came the following day.’’ Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and D are fine; C could be improved to ‘‘came’’ but the error the test targets is the failure to backshift ‘‘will’’ in B. Common Pitfalls: Keeping ‘‘will’’ after past reporting verbs; mixing direct and reported speech timelines. Final Answer: that he will explain it

Question 9

Identify the erroneous segment; if none, choose ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: After toiling very hard over a long period he found he had hardly made no profit at all.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests the rule against unintended double negatives in standard English. Words like ‘‘hardly,’’ ‘‘scarcely,’’ ‘‘barely’’ carry a negative meaning and should not be paired with another negative such as ‘‘no’’ or ‘‘not’’ unless a positive meaning is intended. Given Data / Assumptions: Phrase used: ‘‘hardly made no profit’’ = negative + negative. Intended meaning: He made almost no profit. Concept / Approach: Replace the second negative with a neutral quantifier. Correct collocation: ‘‘hardly any’’ rather than ‘‘hardly no.’’ Step-by-Step Solution: Spot double negative: ‘‘hardly’’ + ‘‘no’’.Adjust quantifier: use ‘‘any’’ after ‘‘hardly’’.Correct version: ‘‘… he had hardly made any profit at all.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Paraphrase: ‘‘He made almost no profit’’—a single negative sense. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A–C are grammatically fine and set up the circumstance; only D creates the nonstandard double negative. Common Pitfalls: Using two negatives under the influence of speech patterns; believing that more negatives strengthen the negative meaning (they cancel in standard grammar). Final Answer: he had hardly made no profit at all.

Question 10

Spot the error in the sentence; if there is no error, choose ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: Scarcely had he gone a few steps that he was told that his mother was no more.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests correct correlative pairing with negative adverbials at the beginning of a clause. ‘‘Scarcely’’ and ‘‘hardly’’ are followed by ‘‘when,’’ not ‘‘that.’’ Given Data / Assumptions: Inversion used: ‘‘Scarcely had he…’’ (correct formal inversion). Connector supplied: ‘‘that’’ (incorrect). Concept / Approach: Standard pairings are ‘‘No sooner … than …’’ and ‘‘Hardly/Scarcely … when …’’ Mixing them leads to errors such as ‘‘Scarcely … that …’’ or ‘‘No sooner … when …’’ Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize frame: ‘‘Scarcely had + subject + past participle’’.Choose correct linker: ‘‘when’’ (not ‘‘that’’).Correct sentence: ‘‘Scarcely had he gone a few steps when he was told that his mother was no more.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Swap ‘‘Scarcely’’ with ‘‘No sooner’’ and adjust: ‘‘No sooner had he gone a few steps than he was told…’’ either structure validates the correction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Proper inversion. B: Past participle ‘‘gone’’ fits after ‘‘had.’’ D: Content clause is fine. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the pairs ‘‘scarcely/when’’ and ‘‘no sooner/than’’; forgetting inversion after initial negative adverbials. Final Answer: that he was told

Question 11

Choose the segment with an error; if none, select ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: The observers felt that the stronger team had to face defeat because the players didn't play whole hearted.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks correct part of speech and adverb formation. After verbs like ‘‘play,’’ an adverb should modify the manner of action, not an adjective. Given Data / Assumptions: Target expression: ‘‘play wholeheartedly’’ (adverb). Given form: ‘‘whole hearted’’ (adjective, even spaced incorrectly). Concept / Approach: Use the adverb form to modify verbs: adjective → adverb by adding ‘‘-ly’’ (‘‘wholehearted’’ → ‘‘wholeheartedly’’). Also, the compound is typically written solid: ‘‘wholehearted(ly).’’ Step-by-Step Solution: Identify modifier role: it modifies ‘‘play’’ → needs adverb.Form adverb: ‘‘wholeheartedly.’’Correct sentence: ‘‘… because the players didn’t play wholeheartedly.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Try substituting a clear adverb like ‘‘well’’—‘‘didn’t play well’’ confirms that an adverbial form is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A–C are acceptable; the cause–effect structure is fine. The only clear grammatical error is in D. Common Pitfalls: Using adjectives where adverbs are required; splitting compounds (‘‘whole hearted’’) that are normally closed (‘‘wholehearted’’). Final Answer: didn't play whole hearted.

Question 12

Find the erroneous part; if the sentence is correct, choose ‘‘No error.’’ Sentence: One of the objective of the meeting which was held today was to elect new office-bearers.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks subject–noun number agreement in the ‘‘one of the + plural noun’’ pattern. Given Data / Assumptions: Headed by the quantifier phrase ‘‘one of the …’’ Noun following ‘‘of the’’ must be plural. Concept / Approach: The correct structure is ‘‘one of the + plural noun’’ (e.g., ‘‘one of the reasons,’’ ‘‘one of the objectives’’). Using a singular noun after ‘‘of the’’ is ungrammatical. Step-by-Step Solution: Spot pattern: ‘‘one of the objective’’ → noun must be plural.Correct form: ‘‘one of the objectives’’.Recast: ‘‘One of the objectives of the meeting which was held today was to elect new office-bearers.’’ Verification / Alternative check: Replace ‘‘one’’ with ‘‘two’’; you would naturally say ‘‘two of the objectives’’—confirming the noun needs to be plural. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B–D are fine and idiomatic; the only structural error is in A. Common Pitfalls: Letting the singular idea of ‘‘one’’ pull the following noun into singular form; forgetting that ‘‘of the’’ governs the plural set from which one item is selected. Final Answer: One of the objective

Question 13

Spot the error; choose ‘‘No error’’ if the sentence is correct. Sentence: Why did people get somuch annoyed even with little provocation is a matter of investigation.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests correct word spacing and, more broadly, noun-clause subjects. The surface, easily testable error is the fused form ‘‘somuch,’’ which must be written as ‘‘so much.’’ Given Data / Assumptions: The clause ‘‘Why …’’ functions as a subject. The phrase ‘‘so much’’ is a quantifier requiring two words. Concept / Approach: As an error-spotting question, the intended single error is the spacing of ‘‘so much.’’ A deeper stylistic improvement would also convert the direct-question order to statement order (‘‘Why people got so much annoyed … is …’’), but the option set requires picking one segment; the unequivocal error is in part B. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify fused quantifier: ‘‘somuch’’ → split into ‘‘so much.’’Optional improvement: change A to ‘‘Why people got’’ for statement order when the clause is a subject.Corrected version (minimal): ‘‘Why did people get so much annoyed even with little provocation is a matter of investigation.’’ (or better: ‘‘Why people got so much annoyed … is …’’) Verification / Alternative check: Check parallel phrases: ‘‘so many,’’ ‘‘so much’’ are always two words; there is no standard single-word form here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, C, and D are serviceable within the test’s constraints; B alone has a clear orthographic error. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking spacing/orthography issues in favor of heavier grammatical concerns; however, competitive exams often target such surface errors. Final Answer: somuch annoyed

Question 14

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “When the national anthem was being sung, everyone were standing in silence.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Error-spotting questions like this one check your command of subject–verb agreement and number concord in formal English. The sentence describes a solemn situation and embeds a common trap: the indefinite pronoun “everyone” looks plural in meaning but is grammatically singular, so it requires a singular verb. Given Data / Assumptions: Main clause: “everyone were standing in silence”. Indefinite pronoun subject: “everyone”. Progressive construction: “was/were standing”. No stylistic trick; the test focuses on agreement only. Concept / Approach: Indefinite pronouns such as everyone, everybody, each, either, neither are singular and take singular verbs. Therefore, the correct agreement is “everyone was”, not “everyone were”. The introductory adverbial clause “When the national anthem was being sung” is correct and does not affect agreement in the main clause. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the true subject of the main clause: “everyone”.Apply the singular verb: “was standing”, not “were standing”.Reconstruct the corrected sentence: “When the national anthem was being sung, everyone was standing in silence.” Verification / Alternative check: Substitute with a clearly singular noun: “Each person was standing …” confirms the singular verb choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and B: Both parts of the time clause are grammatical.D: Progressive complement “standing in silence” is fine.E: Not correct because an error exists in C. Common Pitfalls: Letting the idea of plurality in “everyone” mislead you into plural verbs; overlooking agreement because of intervening phrases. Final Answer: sung, everyone were

Question 15

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “Having learn my lessons, I was very careful in dealing with him in front of his room-mate.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests non-finite verb forms, specifically perfect participles used to express prior action. “Having + past participle” signals that one action is completed before another begins. Using the base form after “Having” is ungrammatical in this construction. Given Data / Assumptions: Learner intends: “After I had learned my lessons, I was careful …”. Structure used: “Having learn my lessons …” Remainder of the sentence is syntactically sound. Concept / Approach: The perfect participle requires “Having + V3 (past participle)”. For “learn”, acceptable past participles are “learned” (AmE) or “learnt” (BrE). Therefore, “Having learnt/learned my lessons” is correct; “Having learn” is incorrect. Step-by-Step Solution: Detect the non-finite clause: “Having … my lessons”.Apply the rule: replace “learn” with “learnt/learned”.Corrected sentence: “Having learnt my lessons, I was very careful in dealing with him in front of his room-mate.” Verification / Alternative check: Paraphrase using a finite clause: “After I had learnt my lessons, …” — meaning preserved. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Proper main clause with past tense “was”.C and D: Prepositional phrases are correctly formed and placed.E: Incorrect because an error exists in A. Common Pitfalls: Confusing perfect participle with gerund; forgetting that non-finite forms still obey participle morphology. Final Answer: Having learn my lessons

Question 16

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “He neglects attending lectures regularly, though college was only a few yards away from his house.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence mixes present-time reference with a past-tense concessive clause and also omits a necessary article. Error-spotting here tests tense consistency and article use with singular countable nouns (“the college”). Given Data / Assumptions: Main clause: present habitual “He neglects attending lectures …”. Concessive clause: “though college was only a few yards away …”. “College” is a singular countable noun and normally takes the definite article when a specific college is meant. Concept / Approach: Tense consistency: with a present-habitual main clause, the background fact should normally be present (“is”), unless referring to a specific past period. Article rule: “the college” when referencing a particular institution known to speaker and listener. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify inconsistency: present “neglects” vs. past “was”.Supply article and adjust tense: “though the college is only a few yards away from his house.”Re-read for coherence: the habit and the standing fact now align. Verification / Alternative check: If the writer intended a past narrative, the main clause would shift: “He neglected attending lectures … though the college was …”. That is not the sentence given. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A–C: Acceptable collocation “neglects attending … regularly”.E: Not applicable because D contains an error. Common Pitfalls: Dropping articles before singular count nouns; switching tenses within a single time frame. Final Answer: though college was only a few yards away from his house.

Question 17

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “He tried as he could, Naveen did not succeed in getting his car to start up.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks idiomatic comparison and completeness of a fixed phrase. The intended expression is “He tried as hard as he could,” which uses a degree modifier to complete the comparison. Omitting “hard” makes the structure unidiomatic and incomplete. Given Data / Assumptions: Opening clause: “He tried as he could …” Target meaning: maximal effort. Remaining clauses are grammatical by themselves. Concept / Approach: The correlative comparison “as … as …” requires an adjective/adverb between the two “as” markers, e.g., “as fast as”, “as hard as”. When describing effort with “try”, idiomatic English uses “try hard”. Step-by-Step Solution: Spot the missing degree word in “as … as …”.Insert the appropriate adverb: “hard”.Correct version: “He tried as hard as he could; Naveen did not succeed in getting his car to start up.” Verification / Alternative check: Replace with a synonymous structure: “He made every possible effort …” confirms the intended meaning of maximal effort. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B–D: These segments are grammatically fine (though punctuation could use a semicolon or conjunction between independent clauses; punctuation is not the tested error).E: Incorrect because an error appears in A. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to complete correlative structures; overlooking idiomatic collocations like “try hard”. Final Answer: He tried as he could

Question 18

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “Mr. Raman said that he had a difference with the chairman at his statement.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The test here is correct prepositional collocation with “difference” and the preposition used to introduce the cause/topic. In standard English one says “have a difference of opinion with someone over/about a statement”. The phrase “at his statement” is unidiomatic. Given Data / Assumptions: Speaker disagreed with the chairman about a statement. Structure used: “a difference … with … at his statement”. Collocation requires “of opinion” and “over/about”. Concept / Approach: Common patterns: “a difference of opinion with X over/about Y”. Preposition “at” signals location or reaction; it is not used to mark the topic of disagreement. Step-by-Step Solution: Replace incorrect preposition and add the missing collocation.Correct phrasing: “He had a difference of opinion with the chairman over his statement.”Alternatively: “He disagreed with the chairman about his statement.” Verification / Alternative check: Consult patterns with “difference”: “difference in price”, “difference between A and B”, “difference over an issue”. Only “over/about” fits here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A–C: Acceptable as parts of the reporting clause.E: Incorrect because D contains a collocation/preposition error. Common Pitfalls: Using “at” to introduce causes in formal English; omitting “of opinion” in the idiom and ending up with an awkward phrase. Final Answer: the chairman at his statement.

Question 19

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “During last days, I was continuously trying to contact you, but you were not available.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence checks idiomatic time expressions with determiners. In English, when we refer to a specific, recent period, we typically say “during the last few days” or “in the last few days”, not “during last days”. The definite article and often “few” are required to make the phrase natural and precise. Given Data / Assumptions: Intended meaning: over a recent span of days. Phrase used: “During last days”. Other clauses are structurally sound. Concept / Approach: Use the definite article with “last/previous/next” when specifying a time period: “during the last week”, “in the next few months”. When the number is indefinite and small, “few” is idiomatic: “the last few days”. “During” selects a time period noun phrase; “days” alone without a determiner is awkward in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize the unidiomatic NP “last days”.Insert required elements: “the” and typically “few”.Corrected opening: “During the last few days, …” (or “In the last few days, …”). Verification / Alternative check: Try parallel expressions: “during the past few days”, “over the last few days” — all natural and widely used. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B–D: Verb aspect and the contrastive clause are fine.E: Not applicable; an error exists in A. Common Pitfalls: Dropping articles in time phrases; misusing “during” with bare plurals. Final Answer: During last days

Question 20

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “We were shocking to hear the news of the untimely death of the leader.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The purpose of this question is to distinguish between the -ing participle (active/causative sense) and the -ed participle (passive/resultant state) in adjectival use. People are “shocked” (state experienced), while events are “shocking” (they cause the feeling). Given Data / Assumptions: Subject: “We” (experiencers). Adjective used: “shocking” (causative). Context: reaction to sad news. Concept / Approach: Use “-ed” participles to describe how a person feels: “bored”, “confused”, “shocked”. Use “-ing” participles to describe the thing that causes the feeling: “boring lecture”, “confusing problem”, “shocking news”. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the experiencer: the subject is “we”.Select the correct form: “shocked”.Correct sentence: “We were shocked to hear the news of the untimely death of the leader.” Verification / Alternative check: Switch roles to test: “The shocking news upset us.” Here the event is “shocking”, but with “we” as subject, “shocked” is mandatory. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B–D: These are grammatically sound prepositional complements.E: Incorrect because A contains an error in participle choice. Common Pitfalls: Overusing “-ing” adjectives for feelings; not distinguishing between cause and effect in participial adjectives. Final Answer: We were shocking

Spotting Errors Questions