Question 1

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “I do not recall exactly what he said to me, but when I was quit he said something to me.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests vocabulary/orthography—specifically the confusing pair “quiet” (calm/silent) vs. “quit” (stop/leave). In the sentence, the intended meaning is “silent”, so the correct word is “quiet”. Given Data / Assumptions: Contrast clause: “but when I was … he said something”. Intended state: the speaker became silent or calm. Word used: “quit”, which is a verb meaning “stop/leave”. Concept / Approach: Adjective vs. verb distinction: “quiet” is an adjective; “quit” is a verb. After the copula “was”, an adjective is required to describe the subject (predicate adjective). Step-by-Step Solution: Locate predicate after “was”: it needs an adjective.Replace “quit” with “quiet”.Corrected sentence: “I do not recall exactly what he said to me, but when I was quiet he said something to me.” Verification / Alternative check: Try synonyms: “when I was silent/calm …” — confirms that an adjective is required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, B, and D are grammatical and clear.E is not correct because C contains a lexical error. Common Pitfalls: Misspelling “quiet” as “quite” or “quit”; not recognizing that linking verbs take adjectives, not verbs, as complements. Final Answer: but when I was quit

Question 2

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “The health workers are being tried their best to popularise preventive measures.”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence contrasts the passive progressive “are being tried” with the intended active progressive “are trying”. The test is on correct auxiliary selection and avoiding unintended passive constructions that radically change meaning. Given Data / Assumptions: Intended meaning: health workers themselves are making an effort. Given phrase: “are being tried their best” — which incorrectly makes “health workers” the object of someone else’s “trying”. Collocation: “try one’s best” (active), not “be tried one’s best”. Concept / Approach: Active progressive: “are trying”. Idiomatic form: “are trying their best to …”. Passive “are being tried” means “are being tested/prosecuted”, which is not intended here. Step-by-Step Solution: Remove passive auxiliary “being” and use active verb “trying”.Correct phrase: “are trying their best”.Corrected sentence: “The health workers are trying their best to popularise preventive measures.” Verification / Alternative check: Check idiom: “try my/your/their best to + base verb” is the standard pattern. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, C, and D are correct once B is fixed.E is not applicable because B contains the clear error. Common Pitfalls: Accidentally introducing passive voice with “being”; misplacing possessive “their” around the verb phrase. Final Answer: being tried their best

Question 3

English Grammar – Spot the Error (choose the segment containing the mistake; if there is no mistake, choose ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: “Kamlesh asked the dealer what was the price of that bicycle and whether it is really made in Germany?”

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item focuses on reported (indirect) speech word order in embedded questions. In indirect questions, English uses statement order (subject before verb), not question order (auxiliary before subject). The sentence also hints at sequence-of-tense backshifting, but the primary tested error is the inversion after “what”. Given Data / Assumptions: Reporting verb: “asked”. Embedded question 1: price inquiry introduced by “what”. Embedded question 2: clause introduced by “whether”. Neutral aim: correct grammar of the first embedded clause; punctuation is secondary in such tests. Concept / Approach: Rule: In indirect questions, use declarative order: “what the price was”, “where he lived”, “how it worked”. Therefore, “what was the price” is incorrect in reported speech. Backshift after a past reporting verb is common (“whether it was …”), though permanent truths may remain unshifted; exams usually expect backshift but will flag one primary error at a time. Step-by-Step Solution: Replace question order with statement order: “what the price was”.Optionally backshift the second clause: “and whether it was really made in Germany.”Remove the question mark in full corrections, since the overall sentence is a statement. Verification / Alternative check: Compare: Direct “What is the price?” → Indirect “He asked what the price was.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and C: Reporting frame and connector are fine.D: Many tests allow present “is” for present-time truths; even if you prefer “was”, the principal grammatical error targeted is in B (word order).E: Not valid because an error exists in B. Common Pitfalls: Keeping inversion in indirect questions; retaining a question mark after an indirect-speech matrix clause. Final Answer: what was the price

Question 4

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: After listening to his advice, I decided to not to go abroad for studies.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Error-spotting questions like this check whether you can recognize faulty infinitive structures in formal English. Here, the phrase “decided to not to go” contains an ungrammatical doubling of the infinitive marker “to” and an awkward placement of “not”. Given Data / Assumptions: Main clause: “I decided …”. Negative infinitive intended: “not to go”. Purpose/choice context after receiving advice is irrelevant to the grammar and does not change the rule. Concept / Approach: After verbs like decide/ask/tell/advise, use the pattern: verb + to-infinitive. To negate the infinitive, place “not” directly before “to”: “not to + base verb”. Do not duplicate “to” or split the infinitive in a clumsy way. Acceptable forms: “decided not to go” or, less formal but common, “decided to not go”. The exam-standard fix is “not to go”. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the verb controlling the infinitive: decided.Negate correctly: “not to go”, not “to not to go”.Form the corrected sentence: “After listening to his advice, I decided not to go abroad for studies.” Verification / Alternative check: Substitute a pronoun: “decided not to do it.” If you try “decided to not to do it,” the extra “to” is clearly wrong. Reading aloud also reveals the redundancy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and B are fine; “After listening to …” and “his advice, I …” are standard. D is a correct complement phrase. E is invalid because the error is present in C. Common Pitfalls: Writing “to not to” after verbs of decision; thinking that every negative must follow the first “to”. Remember the compact and accepted “not to + verb”. Final Answer: decided to not to

Question 5

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: As the ticket was firm affixed on the envelope, he could not remove it.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence tests adverb–adjective choice and collocation with the verb “affix”. When describing how something is affixed, an adverb is required (“firmly”), not the adjective “firm”. In addition, the common collocation is “affixed to” rather than “affixed on”. Given Data / Assumptions: Linking structure: “was … affixed”. Intended meaning: the ticket was attached securely. Current phrase: “firm affixed”. Concept / Approach: Modify verbs with adverbs. Therefore, use “firmly affixed”. Also, standard preposition is “to”: “affixed to the envelope”. The key tested error is the misuse of “firm” (adjective) where “firmly” (adverb) is needed. Step-by-Step Solution: Change adjective to adverb: firm → firmly.Prefer the idiom: affixed to (not strictly tested here but advisable).Correct sentence: “As the ticket was firmly affixed to the envelope, he could not remove it.” Verification / Alternative check: Try another adverb: “securely affixed to the envelope” reads naturally. The ungrammatical “firm affixed” jars the ear. Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: A and D are grammatically sound. C would be even better as “to the envelope”, but the primary grammatical error already sits in B. E is wrong because an error exists. Common Pitfalls: Using adjectives to modify verbs; forgetting fixed prepositional partners of verbs like “affix to”, “attach to”, “pin on/onto”. Final Answer: firm affixed

Question 6

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: He had to seek legal help in order for settling the dispute.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem checks correct use of the purpose marker “in order to”. The phrase “in order for settling” is not idiomatic in this construction; the standard pattern is “in order to + base verb”. Given Data / Assumptions: Main predicate: “had to seek”. Purpose clause intended: “in order to settle the dispute”. Incorrect insertion of “for” plus gerund (“for settling”). Concept / Approach: Use “in order to + verb” for purpose when the subject of both clauses is the same. “In order for + noun/pronoun + to + verb” is possible if the subjects differ (e.g., “in order for the court to settle the dispute”). With the same subject, stick to “in order to + settle”. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify purpose marker: “in order …”.Ensure correct form: “in order to settle”.Correct sentence: “He had to seek legal help in order to settle the dispute.” Verification / Alternative check: Drop “in order” entirely: “He had to seek legal help to settle the dispute.” This still reads correctly, confirming that “to settle” is the right structure. Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: A, B, and D are fine. E cannot be selected because C contains the idiom error. Common Pitfalls: Overinserting “for” after “in order”; replacing infinitives with gerunds where purpose is better expressed by “to + verb”. Final Answer: order for settling

Question 7

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: I asked him whom he thought would be able to get the first prize.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item tests case in indirect questions. In “wh-” clauses, choose “who” or “whom” based on the pronoun’s function within the embedded clause, not by what precedes the clause. Given Data / Assumptions: Main reporting verb: “asked”. Embedded clause: “(who/whom) he thought would be able to get …”. Within the embedded clause, the pronoun is the subject of “would be able”. Concept / Approach: Rule: Use “who” for subjects, “whom” for objects. Here the structure is “he thought [who would be able …]”. The pronoun is subject of “would be able,” so it must be “who,” not “whom”. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify clause boundary after “thought”.Determine pronoun function inside the clause: subject.Replace “whom” with “who”.Correct sentence: “I asked him who he thought would be able to get the first prize.” Verification / Alternative check: Paraphrase: “Who would be able …, he thought.” Clearly, “who” is the subject. “Whom” would only be correct if it were the object, e.g., “whom he thought I should select.” Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: A, C, and D are fine. E cannot be right since B contains a case error. Common Pitfalls: Overusing “whom” after verbs like “ask” because it feels formal; forgetting to analyze the embedded clause independently. Final Answer: whom he thought

Question 8

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: Mahatma Gandhi did not solve all the problems of the future but he did solve problems of his own age.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence examines coordination and tense consistency. It contrasts two time scopes using a correct negative/affirmative balance with the auxiliary “did”. Given Data / Assumptions: Negative past simple: “did not solve”. Affirmative contrast: “did solve”. Objects: “problems of the future” vs. “problems of his own age”. Concept / Approach: Using “did” for both the negative and the emphatic affirmative is standard. The contrastive conjunction “but” is appropriate. There is no grammatical error; any stylistic debate about “problems of the future” is outside the scope of grammar spotting. Step-by-Step Checks: Auxiliaries match tense and emphasis (“did not … / did …”).Parallel structure across the coordinated clauses is maintained.Noun phrases are clear and logical. Verification / Alternative check: Rephrase: “He did not solve future problems, but he did solve the problems of his own time.” The grammar remains correct, confirming absence of error. Why Other Options Are Wrong (as error choices): No segment (A–D) contains a grammatical fault, so E (“No error.”) is the only correct choice. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking rhetorical content or historical evaluation for grammar; assuming “did solve” is redundant—here it is emphatic and valid. Final Answer: No error.

Question 9

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: We never thought that Mahesh is oldest than the other players in the team.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This checks comparative vs. superlative forms with “than”. Use the comparative (“older than”), not the superlative (“oldest”), when directly comparing two sets via “than”. Given Data / Assumptions: Comparison marker: “than”. Target adjective: old → older/oldest. Group contrasted: Mahesh vs. the other players. Concept / Approach: Rule: Use the comparative + “than” for two-way comparisons (“older than others”). Use the superlative + “of/in” when singling out one from a group (“the oldest of the team”). Therefore, “oldest than” is ungrammatical. Also, sequence-of-tense often prefers “was” after “thought,” but that is secondary to the clear comparative error. Step-by-Step Solution: Replace “oldest” with “older”.Optional tense backshift for reported thought: “was”.Correct sentence: “We never thought that Mahesh was older than the other players in the team.” Verification / Alternative check: Superlative route: “the oldest of all the players in the team” (acceptable), but then remove “than”. This confirms why “oldest than” is wrong. Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: A and D are fine. B could be “was” for backshift, but “is” can stand in timeless commentary; still, C contains the definite error. E cannot be chosen. Common Pitfalls: Mixing superlatives with “than”; forgetting that “other” is needed when comparing a member with the rest of its group. Final Answer: oldest than the other

Question 10

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: One of the party members were dismissed for speaking against the leader.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This sentence tests subject–verb agreement with “one of + plural noun”. Despite the plural noun that follows, the grammatical subject is “one” (singular), so the verb must also be singular (“was”), not plural (“were”). Given Data / Assumptions: Noun phrase pattern: “one of the party members”. Verb phrase used: “were dismissed”. Complement reason: “for speaking against the leader”. Concept / Approach: In the structure “one of the + plural noun + relative clause/verb”, the head noun is “one” (singular). Therefore, choose a singular verb form. Write “was dismissed”. If you wished to focus on “members”, you would need a different structure. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify head subject: “one”.Select singular verb: “was”.Correct sentence: “One of the party members was dismissed for speaking against the leader.” Verification / Alternative check: Try replacing “one” with “two”: “Two of the party members were dismissed.” The verb changes to plural only when the quantifier becomes plural, confirming the rule. Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: A, C, and D are fine. E cannot be chosen since B has the agreement error. Common Pitfalls: Letting the nearest plural noun force a plural verb (proximity agreement). Always match the true head noun. Final Answer: members were dismissed

Question 11

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: No sooner the plane landed at the airport than a group of armed commandos surrounded it.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks the fixed correlative structure “No sooner … than …” which requires inversion with the auxiliary “had” (or “did” in present). The absence of inversion after “No sooner” is the error. Given Data / Assumptions: Opening adverbial: “No sooner …”. Past perfect context implied (one action immediately followed another). Current faulty clause: “No sooner the plane landed …”. Concept / Approach: Correct patterns: No sooner had + subject + past participle … than … No sooner did + subject + base verb … than … (less common; present narrative) Therefore, we need “No sooner had the plane landed than …”. Step-by-Step Solution: Insert auxiliary and invert: “had the plane landed”.Keep “than” to introduce the second clause.Correct sentence: “No sooner had the plane landed at the airport than a group of armed commandos surrounded it.” Verification / Alternative check: Use the sister structure: “Hardly/Scarcely had the plane landed when …”. This confirms that “than” belongs with “No sooner …”. Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: B is fine once A is corrected. C and D are grammatically fine noun/verb phrases. E is invalid because an error exists in A. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting auxiliary inversion after negative/limiting adverbs; mixing “No sooner … than …” with “Hardly/Scarcely … when …”. Final Answer: No sooner the plane landed

Question 12

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: The job is much worse than I expected If I would have realised how awful it was going to be I would not have accepted it.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question targets conditional sentences in the past (third conditional). The standard form uses “if + past perfect” in the if-clause and “would have + past participle” in the main clause. The phrase “If I would have realised …” is non-standard in this construction. Given Data / Assumptions: Regret about a past realization that did not happen. Intended structure: If I had realised …, I would not have accepted it. Other parts provide context but are grammatically okay. Concept / Approach: Use: if + had + V3 (past perfect) → would/could/might + have + V3. Reserve “would have” for the result clause. Avoid “would have” in the if-clause unless expressing willingness (“If you would have the kindness …” different meaning). Step-by-Step Solution: Replace “would have realised” with “had realised”.Punctuate properly with commas for readability.Correct sentence: “The job is much worse than I expected. If I had realised how awful it was going to be, I would not have accepted it.” Verification / Alternative check: Test form: “Had I realised, I would not have accepted it.” Inversion alternative confirms the correct tense pairing. Why Other Options Are Wrong/Acceptable: A and C are fine (add a period/comma as needed). D correctly matches the third-conditional result. E is wrong because B contains the error. Common Pitfalls: Overusing “would have” in both clauses; neglecting past perfect after “if” for unreal past conditions. Final Answer: If I would have realised

Question 13

English Grammar – Spot the error (choose the erroneous segment or ‘‘No error’’). Sentence: We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item checks tense usage (present perfect), relative clause attachment, and idiomatic phrasing. The sentence is a natural, grammatically correct way of expressing that all possible preventive actions have already been taken while the storm approaches. Given Data / Assumptions: Present perfect: “have done”. Restrictive relative clause: “that could be done”. Purpose infinitive: “to avert the storm”. Non-restrictive descriptive clause: “which is now coming on” (describes the storm’s approach). Concept / Approach: All four parts are syntactically sound. “Coming on” means “approaching” and is idiomatic. If desired, “coming” or “closing in” could replace it stylistically, but no grammar error exists to be spotted. Step-by-Step Checks: The auxiliary “have” matches present relevance.Passive “could be done” correctly expresses possibilities.Infinitive of purpose “to avert” is appropriate.Relative pronoun “which” properly refers to “storm”. Verification / Alternative check: Rephrase: “We have done everything possible to avert the storm, which is now approaching.” Grammar remains correct, confirming that the original has no error. Why Other Options Are Wrong (as error choices): None contains a grammatical fault; therefore, the only correct selection is “No error.” Common Pitfalls: Treating uncommon but correct phrases like “coming on” as errors; confusing stylistic preferences with grammar rules in error-spotting tasks. Final Answer: No error.

Question 14

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: Well, I spend six or seven years / after high school / trying to find a job for me / but could not succeed in it.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This classic “spot the error” item checks tense consistency in a past-time narrative and the use of fixed collocations. Candidates must identify which segment contains a grammatical fault. Given Data / Assumptions: The speaker describes a completed period in the past: “six or seven years after high school”. The later clause “could not succeed” is in past tense. The goal is to keep the timeline consistent across the sentence. Concept / Approach: When a sentence reports a finished time in the past, the main verb must be in past tense. Therefore, “I spend six or seven years” is incorrect; it should be “I spent six or seven years.” Also note that “a job for me” is acceptable though “a job” or “a job suited to me” is more idiomatic; this does not constitute an error in test terms. Step-by-Step Solution: Check tense: “spend” (present) clashes with “could not succeed” (past).Convert to past: “I spent six or seven years …”.Verify other parts: “after high school” is fine; “trying to find a job for me” is grammatically okay; “could not succeed in it” matches past narration. Verification / Alternative check: Edited sentence: “Well, I spent six or seven years after high school trying to find a job for me but could not succeed in it.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Prepositional phrase of time, correct.C: Non-finite clause headed by “trying”, grammatically valid.D: Simple past negative ability matches the narrative time. Common Pitfalls: Mixing present with past in a single past-time narrative; overcorrecting idiomatic but acceptable phrases like “a job for me.” Final Answer: Well, I spend six or seven years

Question 15

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Notice text: All renew licences / may be collected from / the cashier's counter after / paying the fees.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question imitates a notice-board instruction. It examines correct word formation and noun modification in official English (“renewed licences” vs. “renew licences”). Given Data / Assumptions: Context: distributing licences that have already been renewed. Structure: “All … licences may be collected … after paying the fees.” The intended head noun is “licences.” Concept / Approach: We need the correct adjective/participle to modify “licences.” The base verb “renew” cannot directly modify a noun in this way. The appropriate forms are “renewed licences” (participle) or “renewal licences”/“licence renewals” depending on meaning. In notices, “All renewed licences …” is standard. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify modifier: “renew” (bare verb) is wrong as a pre-nominal modifier.Replace with participle: “renewed licences”.Check the rest: “may be collected from the cashier’s counter after paying the fees” is structurally sound. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected notice: “All renewed licences may be collected from the cashier’s counter after paying the fees.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Passive permission with “may be collected” is fine.C: Possessive “cashier’s counter” is idiomatic.D: Gerund phrase “after paying the fees” is acceptable in official style. Common Pitfalls: Using bare verbs as attributive adjectives; confusing “renewal” (noun) with “renewed” (participle) in notice wording. Final Answer: All renew licences

Question 16

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: All his relatives / except his daughter / have gone on / a month's vacation tour.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The item checks agreement and correct use of possessive time expressions. The sentence is split into segments to test if any part violates standard grammar. Given Data / Assumptions: Compound subject: “All his relatives except his daughter”. Plural agreement with “have”. Fixed expression: “a month’s vacation”. Concept / Approach: “Except his daughter” is a prepositional exception that does not change the plurality of the subject “relatives.” Therefore, “have gone” is correct. The possessive time-length construction “a month’s vacation” is idiomatic and grammatically sound. Step-by-Step Solution: Subject–verb: “relatives … have” shows correct plural agreement.Prepositional exception: “except his daughter” is standard and does not trigger singular verb.Time phrase: “a month’s vacation tour” follows possessive-length pattern (e.g., “a day’s work”). Verification / Alternative check: Alternative forms like “a one-month vacation tour” are also correct but not necessary. The original remains grammatically acceptable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not wrong; each segment adheres to standard grammar and idiom. Common Pitfalls: Forcing singular agreement due to the nearby singular “daughter”; replacing the possessive time construction with a less idiomatic variant unnecessarily. Final Answer: No error.

Question 17

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Inversion pattern: No sooner did he / got up from bed / than he was sent / to the dairy.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This tests the “No sooner … than …” inversion pattern with the auxiliary “did.” After “did,” the main verb must be in its base form. Identify the part that violates this rule. Given Data / Assumptions: Trigger phrase: “No sooner … than …”. Auxiliary “did” already carries the past-tense marking. The event sequence is immediate (“no sooner … than …”). Concept / Approach: In negative inversion with “did,” place the main verb in base form: “No sooner did he get up … than …”. Using “got” duplicates the past marking and is incorrect in this construction. Step-by-Step Solution: A: “No sooner did he” — correct inversion with auxiliary.B: “got up from bed” — error; should be “get up from bed.”C: “than he was sent” — correct correlative and passive.D: “to the dairy.” — correct prepositional phrase. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected sentence: “No sooner did he get up from bed than he was sent to the dairy.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not wrong; the only violation is the past form “got” after “did.” Common Pitfalls: Using a past main verb after “did” in negative inversion structures; confusing “hardly … when …” with “no sooner … than …”. Final Answer: got up from bed

Question 18

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: In spite of the difficulties / on the way / they enjoyed their / trip to Gangothri.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The sentence uses a concessive prepositional phrase and a simple past main clause. The purpose is to test whether the concessive connector, agreement, and idiom are correctly used. Given Data / Assumptions: Concessive phrase: “In spite of the difficulties”. Locative adverbial: “on the way”. Main clause: “they enjoyed their trip to Gangothri.” Concept / Approach: “In spite of” must take a noun phrase object, which it does: “the difficulties.” The remainder of the sentence is a straightforward declaration in past tense with correct subject–verb agreement and idiomatic expressions (“enjoyed their trip”). Step-by-Step Solution: Check connector: “In spite of” + NP is correct.Check modifiers: “on the way” is a valid adverbial phrase.Check main clause: “they enjoyed their trip …” is perfectly grammatical. Verification / Alternative check: An alternative is “Despite the difficulties on the way, they enjoyed their trip to Gangotri.” Both versions are acceptable; spelling of the place name may vary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: No option contains a grammatical error; thus “No error.” is the correct choice. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “in spite of” with the conjunct “despite of” (incorrect); overcorrecting the perfectly fine structure. Final Answer: No error.

Question 19

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Sentence: There is just not enough / timing in my job to sit around / talking about how we feel / about each other.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item focuses on lexical choice. English distinguishes “time” (available hours/period) from “timing” (choice of the right moment). The sentence describes insufficient available hours, not appropriateness of a moment. Given Data / Assumptions: Predicate with existential “There is …”. Intended meaning: not enough hours at work to chat. Gerund-participial clause “talking …” functions as a complement. Concept / Approach: Use “time,” not “timing,” when you mean quantity of available hours. Therefore, the error lies in the phrase “timing in my job …”; it should read “time in my job …”. Step-by-Step Solution: A: Structure “There is not enough …” is fine.B: Replace “timing” with “time.”C–D: Complement clause “talking about how we feel about each other” is grammatical. Verification / Alternative check: Corrected: “There is just not enough time in my job to sit around talking about how we feel about each other.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not wrong; the only misuse is “timing.” Common Pitfalls: Confusing “time” (quantity/availability) with “timing” (appropriateness of a moment). Final Answer: timing in my job to sit around

Question 20

English grammar – Spot the error (choose the part with an error or “No error”). Inversion pattern: Hardly had the / sad news reached her / ears when she / broke into tears.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The structure “Hardly … when …” with past perfect is correct in A–C. The test here is idiomatic verb choice for the reaction: English prefers “burst into tears,” not “broke into tears.” Given Data / Assumptions: Trigger: “Hardly had … when …” (past perfect + simple past) is grammatical. Noun phrase: “sad news” functions as subject of “reached.” We must examine idiom accuracy in D. Concept / Approach: With tears and laughter, the natural collocations are “burst into tears” and “burst into laughter,” not “break into tears.” “Break into” collocates with “song,” “a run,” or “a smile,” but not “tears.” Hence, Part D is the erroneous segment. Step-by-Step Solution: A–C: Inversion and tense choices are correct: “Hardly had … when she …”.D: Replace “broke into tears” with “burst into tears.” Verification / Alternative check: Edited version: “Hardly had the sad news reached her ears when she burst into tears.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not wrong; A has correct inversion, B the past participle “reached,” C the conjunction “when.” Common Pitfalls: Overgeneralizing “break into” across all emotional responses; forgetting the set-phrase nature of such collocations. Final Answer: broke into tears.

Spotting Errors Questions