Question 1

Statements: (1) Oxygen is a gas. (2) This cylinder contains gas. Conclusion: This cylinder contains oxygen. How should this conclusion be classified?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to evaluate a conclusion based on two simple statements about gases. Oxygen is identified as a gas, and the cylinder is said to contain gas. The conclusion then claims that the cylinder contains oxygen. The central issue is whether the fact that oxygen is one example of a gas is sufficient to conclude that any container holding gas must be holding oxygen in particular. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement 1: Oxygen is a gas. Statement 2: This cylinder contains gas. Conclusion: This cylinder contains oxygen. No information is given about what kind of gas is inside the cylinder. We know that many different gases exist besides oxygen. Concept / Approach: The reasoning used in the conclusion is faulty. From the fact that oxygen belongs to the category of gases, and the fact that the cylinder contains some gas, it does not logically follow that the gas present must be oxygen. The cylinder could contain nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium or any other gas. The premises only tell us that oxygen is an example of a gas and that the cylinder holds at least one gas, but they do not identify which gas. Therefore, the conclusion must be classified as false in terms of logical inference from the given statements. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand Statement 1 as saying that oxygen is one member of the broader class of gases. Step 2: Understand Statement 2 as saying that the cylinder contains at least one type of gas, but it does not name that gas. Step 3: Notice that many substances are gases, such as nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium and carbon dioxide. Step 4: The conclusion that the cylinder contains oxygen assumes that because oxygen is a gas and the cylinder has gas, the gas must be oxygen. Step 5: This is a classic logical error similar to saying "a dog is an animal, this cage contains an animal, therefore the animal is a dog." The conclusion does not follow. Step 6: Because there is no information specifying the gas inside the cylinder, claiming specifically that it contains oxygen is logically incorrect. Step 7: Hence the conclusion is false when judged as a deduction from the given statements. Verification / Alternative check: To further clarify, imagine two situations. In one, the cylinder holds nitrogen; in the other, it holds oxygen. Both situations satisfy Statement 2, because both contain gas. Statement 1 remains true in both situations, because oxygen is a gas. However, the conclusion "this cylinder contains oxygen" is true in one situation and false in the other. This shows that the conclusion is not guaranteed by the premises and is therefore not valid as a logical deduction. For classification purposes in a reasoning test, it is best described as false in this context. Why Other Options Are Wrong: It cannot be called True, because there is no basis in the statements to assert that the specific gas is oxygen. Probably true is also not appropriate, because there is no probabilistic evidence; many gases are commonly stored in cylinders. Irrelevant is unsuitable because the conclusion concerns the same topic, namely the gas in the cylinder, and is directly related to the statements, just incorrectly inferred. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse the idea that oxygen is a gas with the idea that any gas must be oxygen. This is an example of a reasoning error where membership in a category is mistaken for identity. Whenever you see a pattern "X is a Y, Z is a Y, therefore Z is X," you should be cautious. In most cases, this pattern is invalid unless there is additional information that uniquely links X and Z. In reasoning questions, always look for such missing links before accepting a conclusion. Final Answer: The conclusion that the cylinder contains oxygen is false, given the information provided.

Question 2

Which of the following is always associated with justice and forms its essential characteristic?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks about the essential quality that is always associated with justice. Justice is a central concept in law, ethics and social life. The options include hypocrisy, magnanimity, legitimacy and diminutiveness. The task is to identify which of these words best captures the necessary character of any act or system that can correctly be called just. Given Data / Assumptions: The concept under discussion is justice. Options are hypocrisy, magnanimity, legitimacy and diminutiveness. We assume justice refers to fair treatment and lawful correctness. We must select a quality that justice cannot exist without. The correct answer should fit legal, moral and social uses of the word justice. Concept / Approach: Justice, in law and ethics, requires that actions and decisions are in accordance with rules, rights and fairness. A just decision must be legitimate, meaning it is based on proper authority and lawful reasoning. Hypocrisy is the opposite of sincerity and is not a necessary companion of justice. Magnanimity means generosity or nobility of mind, which, while admirable, is not required in every just act. Diminutiveness refers to smallness and is unrelated to justice as a concept. Legitimacy, on the other hand, directly connects to the idea that justice is valid and rightful. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is dishonesty in pretending to have virtues one does not really possess. It is the opposite of what we expect from a just person or system. Step 2: Consider magnanimity. This quality refers to generosity and a willingness to forgive. While a just judge may be magnanimous, justice itself can be strict but still fair without being generous. Step 3: Consider diminutiveness. This means smallness, usually in size or importance. It has no conceptual link to justice. Step 4: Consider legitimacy. Legitimacy means being lawful, valid and in accordance with accepted principles. Step 5: Recognise that a just decision or system must be legitimate. If a verdict is not legitimate, it cannot be considered truly just. Step 6: Thus, legitimacy is the quality that is always associated with justice among the given options. Verification / Alternative check: Think about a court judgment. For the judgment to be called just, it must follow the law, respect evidence and be passed by a court with proper authority. These are all aspects of legitimacy. A judgment could be strict and not especially generous, yet still fair and legitimate. It could be delivered by a judge who is not personally magnanimous, but if the process and reasoning are correct, the result remains just. Hypocrisy would undermine justice, and diminutiveness has no role here. This confirms that legitimacy is the constant companion of justice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Hypocrisy conflicts with justice because justice demands honesty and fairness, not pretense. Magnanimity is a virtue of generosity but is not required for justice, which is primarily about fairness and lawfulness. Diminutiveness simply refers to small size or importance and has no essential connection with justice. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates choose magnanimity because they associate justice with kindness or forgiveness. However, justice sometimes requires strict penalties or making hard decisions. The core test is whether the action is lawful and fair, not whether it is generous. Always ask which option captures the structural requirement for the concept in question. For justice, that structural requirement is legitimacy, the rightful and lawful basis of decisions. Final Answer: Legitimacy is the quality that is always associated with justice.

Question 3

A child must have had which of the following in order to come into existence and live as a human being?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks you to identify what a child must have had, in the sense of what is logically necessary for a child to exist as a human being. Several options refer to common aspects of childhood, such as toys, friends and education. One option refers to parents. The challenge is to distinguish between things that are typical in many children's lives and the single factor that is absolutely required for any human child to exist. Given Data / Assumptions: The subject is a child, meaning a young human being. Options are toys, friends, parents and education. We are asked what a child must have had at some point. We consider the basic biological and social conditions for a child's existence. We do not assume ideal living conditions; we only consider what is logically necessary. Concept / Approach: Every human child, by definition, is born to parents. These may be known or unknown, living or deceased, but there must have been biological parents for the child to exist at all. Toys, friends and education are important for development and happiness, but a child can exist without any of these. Some children grow up in extreme poverty without toys, some may be isolated and have few or no friends, and some may tragically lack access to formal education. Parents, however, are biologically necessary at conception and birth. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider toys. Many children enjoy toys, but it is possible for a child to have grown up in circumstances where toys were never available. Step 2: Consider friends. Although social relationships are important, a child may have very few friends or temporarily none, especially in remote or difficult environments. Step 3: Consider education. Education is valuable and often considered a right, but some children unfortunately receive little or no formal education. They are still children. Step 4: Consider parents. By basic biology, a child must have had a mother and a father, even if one or both are absent later in life. Without parents, there is no birth. Step 5: Recognise that parents are the only option that is logically necessary for a child to have existed at all. Verification / Alternative check: Think about extreme cases. A child in a war zone or an orphanage may lack toys, close friends and formal schooling, yet is clearly a child. However, it is impossible to imagine any human child without having had parents at the time of conception and birth. The legal and social status of parents can differ, but the biological fact remains. This thought experiment confirms that among the options, parents is the only truly indispensable element. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Toys are common but not essential; many children grow up without them. Friends are important for emotional development, yet some children may be isolated without losing their status as children. Education is a social good and a right but not a logical precondition for being a child. Some children receive education late or not at all. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates answer based on ideal images of childhood, imagining that a normal childhood must include toys, friends and schooling. Reasoning questions like this focus instead on logical necessity, not on ideals. Always ask: without which of these could the person still be a child? This frame of thinking makes it clear that parents are necessary, while other aspects, though desirable, are not strictly required. Final Answer: A child must have had parents.

Question 4

Which of the following is always associated with any bargain, regardless of its size or context?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question explores the essential feature that defines a bargain. Bargains can occur in markets, shops, online platforms and informal settings. People may bargain over prices, services or terms. The options include sumptuousness, exchange, triviality and eloquence. The task is to select the characteristic that must always be present whenever a bargain takes place, regardless of the subject or value of the transaction. Given Data / Assumptions: The central concept is a bargain, meaning a negotiated deal or agreement, especially about price or terms. Options are sumptuousness, exchange, triviality and eloquence. We assume all usual forms of bargaining, from simple price negotiation to more complex trading. We must identify a feature common to every bargain. The correct answer should match basic definitions found in commerce and everyday language. Concept / Approach: A bargain involves two or more parties who agree to give something and receive something in return, often after negotiation. This mutual giving and receiving is the essence of exchange. Sumptuousness refers to richness or luxury and is not required for a bargain. Triviality refers to unimportance and does not define bargaining. Eloquence refers to fluent, persuasive speech, which may be helpful but is not always present. Therefore, the only feature that always accompanies a bargain is exchange between the parties involved. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider sumptuousness. Some bargains are made over very simple or inexpensive items, so luxury or richness is not necessary. Step 2: Consider triviality. Bargains can be about small matters or highly significant business deals. Importance varies, so triviality cannot define all bargains. Step 3: Consider eloquence. Some people bargain in very simple language without special rhetorical skill. A bargain can occur even with minimal speech if the terms are understood. Step 4: Consider exchange. In every bargain, one party gives something (usually money, goods or services) and receives something in return. Step 5: Recognise that this mutual transfer of value is the core of a bargain; without exchange, there is no deal. Step 6: Conclude that exchange is the only option that is always associated with any bargain. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine different examples of bargains: haggling over the price of vegetables in a market, negotiating the sale of a house, or agreeing to swap services between two professionals. In each case, something is given and something is received. However, not all such deals are luxurious, trivial or conducted with polished language. The constant element is that the parties exchange value. This reflection across several scenarios confirms that exchange is the defining feature of bargain and is present in every case. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sumptuousness applies only to luxury goods or expensive settings and is absent from everyday low-cost bargaining. Triviality is not essential, since many bargains involve large sums of money or important commitments. Eloquence is a skill in communication and may enhance bargaining but is not required. Many successful bargains occur with plain or even minimal speech. Common Pitfalls: Some test-takers get distracted by the emotional or social aspects of bargaining, such as clever speech or the excitement of getting a luxurious item. However, reasoning questions of this type focus on structural features, not on style. To avoid mistakes, always ask what basic process is happening. With bargains, that process is an exchange of value between parties, following negotiation or mutual agreement. Final Answer: Exchange is always associated with a bargain.

Question 5

In everyday reasoning, a controversy is a situation in which people strongly differ in their opinions or claims. Controversy always necessarily involves which of the following elements?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The word controversy is frequently used in news reports, examinations and everyday discussions. Reasoning questions often ask what feature is essential to a concept, that is, which characteristic must always be present for the term to apply. In this question, you have to choose the one element that is always present whenever there is a controversy. Given Data / Assumptions: - The term controversy refers to a situation of public dispute or heated debate. - The options list associated feelings and situations: dislike, injustice, disagreement, and anger. - We must identify the element that is necessary in every controversy, not something that may or may not occur. Concept / Approach: To solve such verification of truth questions, you should focus on the definition of the key word. Controversy means a prolonged public disagreement or dispute about a matter of opinion, policy, belief, or fact. The central idea is that people hold opposing views. Emotional states like anger or dislike and conditions like injustice can appear, but they are not required by the definition. The option that best captures the core of controversy must be the correct answer. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall that controversy is essentially a dispute or argument about a topic. Step 2: Ask which conditions are always present. Without two or more sides differing, there can be no controversy. Step 3: Recognise that this essential feature is disagreement, because each side supports a different position. Step 4: Notice that dislike may not be present. People can disagree yet respect one another. Step 5: Injustice is also not necessary. Many controversies are about taste, theory or interpretation where nobody is being treated unfairly. Step 6: Anger is also optional. Some controversies remain calm and polite, especially in academic contexts. Step 7: Therefore, the only element that must always exist in a controversy is disagreement. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine different controversial issues: a debate between scientists about a theory, an argument about a sports decision, or a disagreement about a social policy. In every case, at least two sides hold opposing opinions. Now imagine a situation where everyone agrees. No matter how strong other feelings are, if there is no difference of opinion, you would not call it a controversy. This confirms disagreement as the essential condition. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Dislike: People may have warm personal relationships and still be in controversy over an idea or decision. Injustice: Many controversies are about which approach is better, not necessarily about unfair treatment. Anger: Controversies can be conducted with calm discussion and mutual respect, so anger is not required. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes confuse common side effects with essential features. Because news controversies often show anger and accusations of injustice, it is easy to assume these are necessary. The key is to separate emotional or dramatic aspects from the logical core of the concept. Always go back to the basic dictionary type meaning and test each option against that core idea. Final Answer: Controversy always necessarily involves disagreement.

Question 6

Consider the statement: "If Sheela is happy, then she does not go to work." Which of the following combinations of Sheela's mood and work status is logically impossible if this statement is true?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Logical reasoning questions often use short statements about everyday situations to test understanding of implication. The statement here says that whenever Sheela is happy, she does not go to work. You must decide which of the listed combinations of happiness and work can never happen if the original statement is true. This is a classic test of interpreting an "if then" statement correctly. Given Data / Assumptions: - The given logical rule is: if Sheela is happy, then she does not go to work. - Symbolically, let H represent "Sheela is happy" and W represent "Sheela goes to work". The statement is H implies not W. - The options list different possible combinations of H and W being true or false. - We assume the rule is always true, and we look for a combination that would contradict it. Concept / Approach: An implication of the form "if H then not W" is false only when H is true but the consequence not W fails, which means W is true. In all other cases, including when H is false, the implication can still be true. Therefore, the only impossible situation under the given rule is the one where Sheela is happy and still goes to work. This approach uses basic truth table reasoning for conditional statements. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Translate the sentence "If Sheela is happy, then she does not go to work" into symbolic form H implies not W. Step 2: Recall that an implication fails only when the condition happens but the required result does not. Step 3: Check option a: Sheela is not happy and she goes to work. Here H is false, W is true. When H is false, the rule makes no requirement, so this case is allowed. Step 4: Check option b: Sheela is happy and she does not go to work. Here H is true and W is false, so not W is true. This exactly matches the rule and is allowed. Step 5: Check option c: Sheela is not happy and she does not go to work. H is false, and again no requirement is violated. This situation is possible. Step 6: Check option d: Sheela is happy and she goes to work. Now H is true and W is also true, so not W is false. This contradicts H implies not W. Step 7: Therefore, the combination where Sheela is happy and still goes to work is logically impossible if the original statement is correct. Verification / Alternative check: You can also reason using the contrapositive of the rule. H implies not W is logically equivalent to W implies not H. This means that whenever Sheela goes to work, she is not happy. If an option shows Sheela going to work and being happy at the same time, it clearly violates this contrapositive. Option d exactly does that, confirming it as the impossible situation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sheela is not happy and she goes to work: The rule only specifies what happens when Sheela is happy. When she is not happy, going to work is completely allowed. Sheela is happy and she does not go to work: This is precisely what the rule predicts, so it is a consistent case. Sheela is not happy and she does not go to work: Again, the condition H is false, so the rule does not constrain this situation. Common Pitfalls: A frequent misunderstanding is to read "if H then not W" as a two way statement and to conclude that whenever she does not go to work she must be happy. That would be a different, stronger statement. Another error is to assume that if H is false, the rule is violated, which is not correct for a one way implication. Keeping in mind that only the case H true and W true breaks the rule will help you handle many similar logical questions. Final Answer: The combination that is logically impossible is Sheela is happy and she goes to work.

Question 7

In general knowledge and basic science, which one of the following properties is most characteristically associated with diamond?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Diamonds are widely known not only as precious gemstones but also for their unique physical properties. Reasoning and general knowledge questions often ask which single property is most typical or defining for a material. Here you must pick the feature that is most essentially associated with diamond among the given choices. Given Data / Assumptions: - The object under discussion is diamond, a crystalline form of carbon. - The properties listed are brilliance, conductivity, sharpness, and hardness. - We are asked for the property that is most distinctively associated with diamond in common scientific and everyday usage. Concept / Approach: Diamond is famous in materials science for being extremely hard. On the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, diamond is placed at the top as the hardest natural substance. While diamond is also known for its optical brilliance, many other gemstones also display brilliance. Conductivity and sharpness are less central to diamond's popular identity. Therefore, we should choose the property that uniquely stands out worldwide when people think of diamond as a material. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recall what makes diamond special in school level science: its extreme hardness due to strong covalent bonding in a three dimensional network. Step 2: Compare this with brilliance. Diamond jewellery sparkles because of high refractive index and dispersion, but brilliance is not unique to diamond; other cut stones like cubic zirconia can also be brilliant. Step 3: Conductivity usually refers to electrical conductivity. Diamond is actually a very poor electrical conductor, unlike graphite, which is another form of carbon. Step 4: Sharpness refers to the ability of an edge to cut. Although diamond tipped tools can cut hard materials, the term sharpness is more strongly linked to knives or blades, not to diamond as such. Step 5: Hardness, specifically very high hardness, is the property for which diamond is world famous. Industrially, diamond is used for cutting, drilling and grinding other materials because of this hardness. Step 6: Therefore, among the options, hardness is the most characteristically associated property. Verification / Alternative check: Think of where you have seen diamond mentioned outside jewellery advertisements. In science textbooks, diamond is introduced as the hardest natural substance, used in glass cutting tools and drill bits. Brilliance is usually discussed along with many gemstones, while conductivity is rarely praised in connection with diamond. This confirms that hardness is the defining property that sets diamond apart in common knowledge and examination contexts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Brilliance: Diamonds are brilliant, but brilliance is not unique to them and is more dependent on cut and polishing. Conductivity: Diamond is an electrical insulator, so this option directly conflicts with basic science facts. Sharpness: Diamond tools are hard rather than sharp by nature. Sharpness is a result of the way a tool is shaped and sharpened. Common Pitfalls: Some students see jewellery related images of diamonds and immediately think of sparkle and brilliance. However, exam questions often focus on textbook definitions and material properties. Forgetting the difference between electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity can also cause confusion, because diamond is a good conductor of heat but not of electricity. Paying attention to how textbooks describe diamond will help avoid these mistakes. Final Answer: The property most characteristically associated with diamond is its extreme hardness.

Question 8

Read the statements and conclusions carefully: Statements: Some actors are singers. All the singers are dancers. Conclusions: (i) Some actors are dancers. (ii) No singer is an actor. Disregarding commonly known facts and using only the statements, w…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Syllogism questions test your ability to draw valid conclusions from given statements, treating them as logically perfect, even if they conflict with real world facts. Here you are given two statements about actors, singers and dancers, and two proposed conclusions. Your task is to decide which conclusion must be true if the statements are assumed to be true. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1: Some actors are singers. - Statement 2: All the singers are dancers. - Conclusion (i): Some actors are dancers. - Conclusion (ii): No singer is an actor. - We must ignore outside knowledge and focus only on the logical structure of the statements. Concept / Approach: The phrase some actors are singers means there is at least one person who is both an actor and a singer. The phrase all the singers are dancers means that every singer automatically belongs to the group of dancers. When we combine these, any person who is both an actor and a singer must also be a dancer. This shows that some actors are dancers. At the same time, conclusion (ii) directly contradicts the first statement and so cannot follow. A simple Venn diagram with three overlapping sets can help visualise this reasoning. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: From the first statement, identify that there is at least one member in the intersection of actors and singers. Step 2: From the second statement, note that the set of singers is completely contained within the set of dancers. Step 3: Combine the information. Any person who is in the singers set must also be in the dancers set. Step 4: The person or people who are both actors and singers are therefore also dancers. Step 5: This means that at least one actor is a dancer. So conclusion (i) "Some actors are dancers" must be true. Step 6: Now examine conclusion (ii) "No singer is an actor". This would mean there is no overlap between singers and actors. Step 7: However, the first statement clearly says that some actors are singers, which means there is at least some overlap. Step 8: Therefore conclusion (ii) directly contradicts the given statement and cannot follow. Step 9: As a result, only conclusion (i) follows logically from the statements. Verification / Alternative check: Draw three circles labelled actors, singers and dancers. Mark a region where actors and singers overlap. Then shade all of the singers circle and place it fully inside the dancers circle, because all singers are dancers. You can clearly see that the overlap region between actors and singers lies inside the dancers circle, confirming that some actors are dancers. There is no way to draw the diagram so that no singer is an actor without breaking the first statement, so conclusion (ii) is impossible under the given conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Neither (i) nor (ii) follows: Incorrect because conclusion (i) definitely follows from combining the statements. Either (i) or (ii) follows: Incorrect because only (i) is compatible with the premises; they cannot be alternatives. Only conclusion (ii) follows: Incorrect because (ii) contradicts the first statement and therefore cannot be true. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is ignoring the word some and treating it as many or confusing it with all. Another frequent error is not drawing or imagining the sets carefully, which can lead to accepting contradictory conclusions. Students also sometimes forget that in these questions, we are not allowed to add new assumptions beyond the given statements. Keeping a clear mental or drawn Venn diagram can prevent these mistakes. Final Answer: The only logically valid conclusion is that some actors are dancers, so only conclusion (i) follows.

Question 9

Taj is in Agra. Agra is in India. Therefore, the Taj is in India. How should this conclusion be judged on the basis of the statements?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is an example of a simple logical deduction problem. You are given two factual statements about locations and asked to evaluate a conclusion derived from them. The goal is to judge whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, assuming the premises are true, rather than relying only on general knowledge. Given Data / Assumptions: - Statement 1: Taj is in Agra. - Statement 2: Agra is in India. - Conclusion: Therefore, the Taj is in India. - We assume both statements are true and analyse whether the conclusion must be true. Concept / Approach: This is a classic example of transitive reasoning in logic and mathematics. If object A is located in place B, and place B is located in region C, then object A must also be located in region C. The reasoning is similar to a chain, where membership or location passes through nested sets. Here, Taj belongs to Agra, and Agra belongs to India. Therefore, Taj belongs to India. Because the conclusion directly follows from the combination of the two statements, it is definitely correct. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret the first statement. Saying Taj is in Agra means the location of the Taj is within the city of Agra. Step 2: Interpret the second statement. Saying Agra is in India means that the city of Agra lies within the country of India. Step 3: Visualise the nesting of locations. Taj is inside Agra, and Agra is inside India. Thus, Taj is also inside India. Step 4: This is an example of transitivity: if A is in B and B is in C, then A is in C. Step 5: Since both premises are accepted as true, the conclusion that Taj is in India is not only reasonable but logically forced. Step 6: There is no alternative placement of Taj that would satisfy both premises and yet make the conclusion false. Step 7: Therefore, the conclusion is definitely correct on logical grounds. Verification / Alternative check: You can test similar structures. For example, if a book is on a shelf and the shelf is in a room, then the book is in the room. There is no scenario where the book is on the shelf and the shelf is in the room but the book is not in the room. The same logic applies to the Taj and the geographical relation between Agra and India. Comparing with such everyday examples confirms that the reasoning pattern is valid and the conclusion must hold. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Probably not correct: The conclusion is not a matter of probability but a necessary consequence of the premises. Definitely not correct: This contradicts both logic and known geographical facts when the premises are accepted. Cannot be determined: Once the premises are granted, there is no uncertainty; the conclusion can be determined exactly. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes students overthink very simple logic questions, suspecting a trick. They may look for hidden conditions or imagine alternative meanings. In such problems, however, the task is straightforward: treat the premises as true and apply clear reasoning. Another pitfall is confusing logical validity with real world truth. In this case, both coincide, but in general you must always base your judgement on the given statements, not on external knowledge alone. Final Answer: The conclusion that the Taj is in India is definitely correct given the two statements.

Question 10

People who are bald are generally of the intellectual type. Arun is bald. Based on this statement, how should the conclusion "Arun is an intellectual" be evaluated?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your ability to distinguish between certain conclusions and probable conclusions. The statement uses the word generally, which signals a tendency or frequent pattern rather than a strict rule. You must decide how strongly we can support the conclusion that Arun is an intellectual based on this kind of probabilistic statement. Given Data / Assumptions: - General statement: people who are bald are generally of the intellectual type. - Specific fact: Arun is bald. - Proposed conclusion: Arun is an intellectual. - We interpret generally as meaning this happens often, but there can be exceptions. Concept / Approach: When a statement uses words like generally, usually, often or in most cases, it describes a statistical tendency, not a universal law. From such a statement, you cannot deduce with certainty that every individual in the described group has the property. However, it is reasonable to say that a member of that group is likely to have the property. Therefore, the correct strength of conclusion is probable, not definite. The reasoning here is similar to real life stereotypes and trends, which may be useful but not always reliable for individual cases. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the general statement. It claims that most bald people belong to the intellectual type, but it does not state that all of them do. Step 2: Note that such wording allows for some bald people who are not intellectual. Step 3: Arun is given as an example of a bald person, so he belongs to the group mentioned in the general statement. Step 4: Because the general statement talks about a common trend, we can say that Arun is quite likely to be an intellectual if the trend holds. Step 5: However, we cannot guarantee this. The existence of exceptions means that certainty would go beyond the information provided. Step 6: Therefore, the conclusion "Arun is an intellectual" cannot be labelled definitely correct or definitely not correct. Step 7: The best description is that the conclusion is probably correct, since it is supported by a general tendency but not forced by a strict rule. Verification / Alternative check: Consider another example: "People who read many books are generally good writers. Tom reads many books." It would be reasonable to guess that Tom is probably a good writer, but you could not be sure without more information. He may read without practising writing. In the same way, describing bald people as generally intellectual does not turn baldness into a guarantee of intellectual ability. This parallel example supports treating the conclusion about Arun as probable rather than certain. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Definitely not correct: The general statement supports the conclusion rather than opposing it, so we cannot dismiss it completely. Definitely correct: This would only be justified if the statement had said all bald people are intellectual, which it does not. Cannot be determined: This would ignore the helpful information that there is a strong trend; we can at least decide that the conclusion is more likely than not. Common Pitfalls: Many students misread generally as always and jump to a definite conclusion. Others react against stereotypes and assume that no information can be drawn, choosing cannot be determined too quickly. The right approach is balanced: respect the statistical tendency expressed by generally, but also remember that such statements do not create absolute rules. Exam questions often hide this subtlety in everyday language, so practising careful reading of qualifiers is very important. Final Answer: The conclusion that Arun is an intellectual is probably correct, but not certain.

Question 11

In the context of competitions, a race always necessarily has which of the following?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Reasoning questions of this type ask you to identify an essential component of a situation rather than something that is common but optional. Here the situation is a race, which is a form of competition in sports or other fields. You must decide which listed feature must always be present whenever a real race takes place. Given Data / Assumptions: - The word race refers to a competitive event where participants try to outperform one another, commonly by speed. - The options provided are prize, victory, rivals, and referee. - The question uses the word always, which means we must find a condition that is necessary in every race, not just in most races. Concept / Approach: The core idea of a race is competition between two or more participants. Without competitors, there is no race. Other features such as a prize, an official referee or even a clear victory may be present in many races but are not logically required. Therefore, the essential element is the presence of rivals, that is, people or teams competing against each other. The correct choice will reflect this fundamental characteristic. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Think of a very simple race, such as two children running to a tree. Step 2: In this basic race, they are clearly competing against each other. They act as rivals because each wants to reach the goal first. Step 3: Now ask which options must be present even in this simplest race. There may be no official prize; the children might just run for fun. Step 4: Victory is almost always present, but there can be a tie where no single clear winner emerges, yet it still counts as a race. Step 5: There may be no referee at all. Informal races often happen without any official supervising person. Step 6: However, the presence of rivals or competitors is unavoidable. Without at least two participants competing, the very idea of a race disappears. Step 7: Therefore, among the given options, rivals is the only element that is truly necessary for a race to exist. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine trying to define a race without rivals. If only one person runs alone against time, we generally call it a time trial, training run or practice, not a race, unless there is a comparison with another competitor or record. On the other hand, you can easily imagine races without prizes or referees, for example informal running races in a park. This mental check confirms that rivals is the correct essential component. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Prize: Many races, especially informal or friendly ones, have no prize at all, yet they are still genuine races. Victory: A race can result in a tie where no single participant is declared the winner, but it is still a race. Referee: In many small or informal events, participants supervise themselves without an official referee. Common Pitfalls: Students often focus on what they usually see on television sports events, where prizes, trophies and referees are common. That can cause them to confuse typical features with logically necessary ones. The safe strategy is to strip the situation down to its simplest form and check what remains indispensable. Whenever you see the word always in a question, think carefully about the most minimal version of the scenario. Final Answer: A race always necessarily has rivals, that is, competitors.

Question 12

In the sentence "whole northern states in India are reeling under the devastating of the drought", the sentence has been divided into four labelled parts: (1) whole northern states in / (2) India are reeling under the / (3) devastating / (4) of the …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Error spotting questions present a sentence broken into labelled parts. One part will contain a clear grammatical or usage error, while the others are acceptable in standard English. Your task is to identify the faulty segment. Here the sentence describes northern states in India suffering from drought, and you must locate the part that is grammatically incorrect or incomplete. Given Data / Assumptions: - The full sentence is: "whole northern states in India are reeling under the devastating of the drought". - It is divided into four parts for checking: (1) whole northern states in, (2) India are reeling under the, (3) devastating, (4) of the drought. - We assume the intended meaning is that all northern states are badly affected by the devastating effects of a drought. Concept / Approach: A natural way to express this idea is "the northern states in India are reeling under the devastating effects of the drought". Notice that the word devastating is an adjective and normally needs a noun such as effect or effects. In the given sentence, part (3) contains devastating without any following noun within that segment, and part (4) begins with of the drought. This structure makes devastating stand awkwardly without its proper object, which is a clear grammatical problem. The other parts, while slightly informal, are acceptable or can be adjusted more easily. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (1): "whole northern states in". Although it would be more natural to say "the northern states in" or "the whole of the northern states in", this phrase can be adjusted within normal usage. The main grammar issue is not concentrated here. Step 2: Look at part (2): "India are reeling under the". This part fits normally before a noun phrase like "devastating effects of the drought", so by itself it is not incorrect. Step 3: Consider part (3): "devastating". This word is an adjective that should modify a noun such as effect, impact or consequences. Standing alone, it does not form a complete noun phrase. Step 4: Part (4): "of the drought" is a prepositional phrase that would usually follow a noun as in "effects of the drought". The preposition of correctly links a noun to the drought phrase. Step 5: The ungrammatical construction arises because devastating is not followed by a noun of which it is an adjective. So the error is located in part (3). Step 6: A corrected version would combine parts (3) and (4) as "devastating effects of the drought", adding the missing noun after devastating. Verification / Alternative check: Try reading the sentence by mentally inserting the missing noun: "whole northern states in India are reeling under the devastating effects of the drought". Now the structure is smooth and standard. You can see that only the absence of effects or a similar noun was creating the problem. Since that missing element relates to devastating, the label where the error lies must be the one containing devastating alone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part 1: Slightly clumsy but not strictly ungrammatical; it can be interpreted as a shortened form of a fuller phrase. Part 2: Correctly begins the clause "India are reeling under the..." and needs only a noun phrase after the article the. Part 4: Correct prepositional phrase that becomes fully correct once attached to a suitable noun such as effects. Common Pitfalls: Students may focus on surface awkwardness, such as the phrase whole northern states, and mark part (1). However, many exam setters place the true grammatical error where a key word is missing or misused. It is important to think about which words need partners, such as adjectives requiring nouns or verbs requiring objects. Checking each part for completeness rather than mere style is a reliable approach in error spotting questions. Final Answer: The grammatical error lies in part (3), where the adjective "devastating" is left without the required noun, such as "effects".

Question 13

Which of the following is a correctly formed compound sentence, that is, a sentence made up of two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: English grammar questions often ask you to distinguish between different sentence structures. A compound sentence contains two or more independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction such as and, but, or, or yet. Each clause could stand alone as a complete sentence. In this question you must identify which option fits this definition of a compound sentence. Given Data / Assumptions: - A compound sentence requires at least two independent clauses. - An independent clause has a subject and a verb and expresses a complete thought. - The options provide different sentence patterns, some of which may be simple or complex instead of compound. Concept / Approach: To identify a compound sentence, test whether each part on either side of the conjunction can stand alone as a complete sentence. If both halves are independent, the sentence is compound. If one half is dependent, introduced by a subordinating word such as when, because, although, or if, then the whole structure is complex rather than compound. A simple sentence may have compound verbs but only one subject and one independent clause. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine option a: "We can go see a movie, or we can get something to eat." Clause one is "We can go see a movie." Clause two is "we can get something to eat." Both have a subject and a complete predicate and can stand alone. Step 2: Because both clauses in option a are independent and are joined by the coordinating conjunction or, option a is a classic example of a compound sentence. Step 3: Look at option b: "When you get there, please remember to call me." The first part "When you get there" is not a complete thought; it depends on the second part to make sense. Step 4: Option b therefore has one dependent clause joined to an independent clause and is a complex sentence, not compound. Step 5: Check option c: "Mohan bought some new shoes and wore them to a party." Here there is one subject Mohan and two verbs "bought" and "wore". This is a simple sentence with a compound predicate, not a compound sentence with two separate clauses. Step 6: Since option a alone satisfies the definition of a compound sentence, there is no need to choose "None of the above". Step 7: Conclude that option a is the correctly formed compound sentence among the choices. Verification / Alternative check: As a quick test, put a full stop in place of the comma and conjunction in each option. For option a, you obtain two correct sentences: "We can go see a movie." and "We can get something to eat." For option b, "When you get there." is incomplete, and for option c, "Mohan bought some new shoes." and "wore them to a party." do not both stand correctly because the second fragment lacks an explicit subject. This test confirms that only option a consists of two full independent clauses. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b: Contains a dependent clause introduced by when, making it complex rather than compound. Option c: Has only one subject with two verbs, which is a simple sentence with a compound verb phrase. Option d: Incorrect because option a is already a correct compound sentence. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes treat any sentence with the word and as compound, even when there is only one subject or when one part is not a full clause. Another pitfall is ignoring subordinating conjunctions like when and because, which signal complex sentences. Remember to check both halves of the sentence: can each one stand alone and make complete sense? If yes and they are joined by a coordinating conjunction, you have a compound sentence. Final Answer: The correctly formed compound sentence is "We can go see a movie, or we can get something to eat."

Question 14

Consider the sentence divided into four labelled parts: A) Former prime minister ruled himself out / B) as an alternative rightwing candidate for his party colleague / C) whose campaign has been thrown into chaos / D) by a fake jobs scandal. Which p…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question asks you to identify which labelled segments of a longer sentence contain grammatical or usage errors. Unlike simpler error spotting questions that highlight only one wrong segment, this item expects you to judge which pair of segments needs correction. You must scan each part carefully and distinguish between minor stylistic choices and clear errors according to standard written English. Given Data / Assumptions: - The full sentence reads: "Former prime minister ruled himself out as an alternative rightwing candidate for his party colleague whose campaign has been thrown into chaos by a fake jobs scandal." - The parts are: A) Former prime minister ruled himself out, B) as an alternative rightwing candidate for his party colleague, C) whose campaign has been thrown into chaos, D) by a fake jobs scandal. - We assume the intended meaning is a news style statement about a former prime minister declining to be an alternative candidate to a colleague involved in a scandal. Concept / Approach: When checking such a sentence, you should look for core grammatical issues: missing articles, incorrect prepositions and awkward or unidiomatic combinations. In segment A, the main subject phrase lacks the definite article the, which is required before a singular countable noun phrase like former prime minister when referring to a specific known person. In segment D, the phrase fake jobs scandal is awkward in standard usage; a more natural expression would be fake job scandal or jobs scam. Segments B and C read smoothly and follow common newspaper style. Therefore, parts A and D together contain the most obvious errors. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part A: "Former prime minister ruled himself out". In standard English, we would write "The former prime minister ruled himself out". Without the article the, the noun phrase sounds incomplete. Step 2: Because we are talking about a specific prime minister known to the reader, the definite article is necessary. This makes part A erroneous. Step 3: Consider part B: "as an alternative rightwing candidate for his party colleague". The overall structure is acceptable. News articles often use rightwing without a hyphen, and the preposition for can be used in this context, meaning "as a candidate instead of his colleague". Step 4: Look at part C: "whose campaign has been thrown into chaos". This is a standard relative clause with correct tense and structure. There is no grammatical error here. Step 5: Inspect part D: "by a fake jobs scandal". The phrase jobs scandal is awkward because the scandal is about fake jobs, not that the scandal itself is fake. A clearer phrasing would be "by a fake job scandal" or "by a jobs scam". As written, the wording is confusing and unidiomatic. Step 6: Because part D uses this unclear expression, it is the second segment that should be regarded as incorrect for formal English. Step 7: Combining these observations, we see that parts A and D are the parts that most clearly require correction. Verification / Alternative check: Try rewriting the sentence with minimal corrections: "The former prime minister ruled himself out as an alternative right wing candidate for his party colleague, whose campaign has been thrown into chaos by a jobs scandal involving fake appointments." In this version, the article the in front of former prime minister and the revised phrase at the end significantly improve clarity and correctness. Note that parts corresponding to B and C did not need structural changes, which reinforces that they were acceptable in the original form. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and C: Part C is grammatically fine, so this pair misidentifies an error where none exists. B and D: Part B can be justified as acceptable journalistic style, so grouping it with D does not capture the main problems. C and B: Neither C nor B presents as strong an error as A or D, so this option fails to target the most significant issues. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes mark segments that feel slightly awkward instead of focusing on real grammatical errors. It is important to separate style preferences from rules. Newspaper language often uses compressed structures that may seem abrupt but are not wrong. Look first for missing articles, faulty verb forms or obvious misuse of words. When questions ask for pairs of erroneous parts, ensure that both listed segments truly require correction before choosing that option. Final Answer: The segments that clearly contain errors are parts A and D.

Question 15

Which of the following sentences is written correctly in standard English without using unnecessary double negatives?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your understanding of negative structures in English. In standard English, multiple negatives in the same clause can create confusion or change the meaning. The goal is to choose the sentence that clearly and correctly expresses the idea that they do not watch movies during working days but do watch one during holidays, without using incorrect double negatives. Given Data / Assumptions: - All options describe a contrast between behaviour on working days and during holidays. - Some options use combinations like never and no or do not never, which may form double negatives. - The correct sentence should contain only one negative meaning in the first clause and should be grammatically smooth overall. Concept / Approach: In standard English, a single clause should normally contain only one negative expression to convey a negative meaning. Phrases like never watch no movie or do not never watch any movie are considered incorrect double negatives, because the combination of never with no or do not with never conflicts. A correct version would either use never with a positive object (never watch any movie) or use watch no movie with no additional negative. We must apply this principle to each option and select the one that follows standard usage most closely. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine option a: "They never watch no movie during the working days, but in holidays they watch one movie." The phrase never watch no movie contains two negative words, never and no. This double negative is considered incorrect in standard English. Step 2: Look at option b: "They never watch none movie during the working days, but in holidays they watch one movie." Here never and none again create a double negative construction and the phrase none movie is ungrammatical. Step 3: Check option c: "They do not never watch any movie during the working days, but in holidays they watch one movie." The combination do not and never within the same clause is another double negative, which implies that they sometimes watch movies, changing the intended meaning. Step 4: Consider option d: "They watch no movie during the working days, but in holidays they watch one movie." This sentence uses a single negative expression watch no movie, which is grammatically correct and clearly expresses that they do not watch any movie during working days. Step 5: The second clause in option d, "but in holidays they watch one movie", is slightly informal but understandable and does not contain a negative. Step 6: Therefore, option d stands out as the sentence that avoids incorrect double negatives and conveys the intended meaning clearly. Verification / Alternative check: Rewrite the meaning in your own words: "They do not watch any movie during working days, but during holidays they watch one." Option d can be seen as a direct transformation of this idea. Options a, b and c either introduce extra negatives or distort the meaning. A native speaker or standard grammar text would accept option d without hesitation, while the others would be marked as incorrect. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: Contains the incorrect double negative never and no and sounds ungrammatical. Option b: Combines never with none and also uses the strange phrase none movie, making it doubly incorrect. Option c: Uses do not never, which is a double negative that logically implies they do sometimes watch movies, not that they never do. Common Pitfalls: In some varieties of English, especially in informal speech, double negatives are used for emphasis. However, in standard written English, such patterns are considered errors. Exam questions expect you to follow the standard form. Students may also overlook that not never flips the meaning of the sentence. To avoid mistakes, always count the negative words in each clause and ensure there is only one unless you deliberately wish to cancel the negative effect. Final Answer: The sentence that is written correctly without incorrect double negatives is "They watch no movie during the working days, but in holidays they watch one movie."

Question 16

Read the sentence split into four parts: (1) As much as I admire him for his talent / (2) and endeavor to achieve success / (3) I cannot forgive him for being so / (4) rude to the not so well to do ones. In which part does the main error occur?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your ability to detect grammatical and idiomatic errors in a complex sentence. The sentence describes mixed feelings about a person who is talented but rude. It is divided into four parts, and you must locate the part that contains the clearest error relative to standard written English. Given Data / Assumptions: - Full sentence: "As much as I admire him for his talent and endeavor to achieve success I cannot forgive him for being so rude to the not so well to do ones." - Part (1): As much as I admire him for his talent. - Part (2): and endeavor to achieve success. - Part (3): I cannot forgive him for being so. - Part (4): rude to the not so well to do ones. - We assume the speaker respects the person's talent and hard work but criticises his rude behaviour towards poor people. Concept / Approach: To identify the incorrect part, you must examine grammar and idiomatic expression. Parts (1), (2) and (3) are generally acceptable: the phrase as much as I admire him expresses contrast, endeavor to achieve success is standard, and I cannot forgive him for being so prepares for an adjective. The real problem lies in part (4), which uses the phrase the not so well to do ones. The expression well to do is usually hyphenated as well to do and used as a compound adjective before a noun, and referring to the opposite group as the not so well to do ones sounds awkward and unidiomatic. A more natural phrase would be the not so well off or the less well to do people. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Check part (1): "As much as I admire him for his talent". This is a common way to introduce a contrast. Although some writers prefer "Much as I admire him", the given structure is acceptable. Step 2: Check part (2): "and endeavor to achieve success". The noun endeavor correctly describes effort and is linked to talent with and. There is no major grammatical error here. Step 3: Check part (3): "I cannot forgive him for being so". This phrasing correctly introduces a reason for not forgiving, preparing for the adjective rude in the next part. Step 4: Examine part (4): "rude to the not so well to do ones". The combination not so well to do ones is clumsy. Well to do is normally used to describe people who are rich, not those who are poor. The phrase also lacks proper hyphenation and treats ones as a vague pronoun. Step 5: Given the context, the speaker probably means people who are not well off or who are poor. Step 6: Therefore, the error is concentrated in part (4), which requires rephrasing for standard and clear English. Verification / Alternative check: Rewrite the sentence in a corrected form: "As much as I admire him for his talent and his endeavour to achieve success, I cannot forgive him for being so rude to those who are not well off." Now the structure is smooth and standard. Note that parts corresponding to (1), (2) and (3) needed only minor punctuation adjustments, while the phrase in part (4) had to be significantly changed to express the intended meaning clearly. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (1): Grammatically acceptable, even if some examiners might prefer an alternative expression for style. Part (2): The noun endeavor and its connection to the rest of the sentence are fine. Part (3): Correctly sets up the reason for not forgiving by leading into an adjective in the next part. Common Pitfalls: Test takers sometimes over focus on minor stylistic preferences and mark parts that sound slightly unusual instead of identifying the truly incorrect phrase. Long adjectives chains like not so well to do ones should raise a red flag. When in doubt, try to restate the idea more simply and see which segment needs major change to become natural English. That segment is usually where the exam setter has placed the error. Final Answer: The main error occurs in part (4), in the phrase "the not so well to do ones".

Question 17

Standing on a platform, Rajan says that Varanasi is more than 20 km but less than 25 km from there. Kumar says that it is more than 18 km but less than 22 km from there. If both of them are correct, what is the true distance of Varanasi from the pla…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is a classic example of reasoning with inequalities and overlapping ranges. Two people give different but partly overlapping distance estimates for Varanasi from the same platform. You are told that both of them are correct, which means the actual distance must satisfy both sets of conditions at the same time. The task is to find which option fits within both ranges. Given Data / Assumptions: - Rajan states that the distance is more than 20 km and less than 25 km. - This can be written as 20 km < distance < 25 km. - Kumar states that the distance is more than 18 km and less than 22 km. - This can be written as 18 km < distance < 22 km. - Both statements are assumed to be correct simultaneously, so the distance must lie in the intersection of these two ranges. Concept / Approach: To satisfy both inequalities at the same time, the distance must lie in the overlapping portion of the two intervals. This means the distance must be greater than the larger of the two lower limits and less than the smaller of the two upper limits. So we find max(20,18) and min(25,22), then check which of the given options lies strictly between those values. Because the limits are given as more than and less than, the endpoints 20 and 22 themselves are excluded from the possible values. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Write Rajan's inequality: 20 < distance < 25. Step 2: Write Kumar's inequality: 18 < distance < 22. Step 3: For both to be true together, the distance must satisfy both inequalities. Step 4: The distance must be greater than 20 km, because that is the higher of the two lower bounds (20 km and 18 km). Step 5: The distance must be less than 22 km, because that is the lower of the two upper bounds (25 km and 22 km). Step 6: Therefore, the combined condition is 20 km < distance < 22 km. Step 7: Check the answer options: 20 km is equal to the lower bound and therefore not strictly greater; 22 km is equal to the upper bound and not strictly less. Step 8: 19 km is less than 20 km and fails Rajan's condition. Step 9: 21 km is greater than 20 km and less than 22 km, so it satisfies both Rajan's and Kumar's statements. Step 10: Thus, the only possible true distance consistent with both is 21 km. Verification / Alternative check: You can visualise both ranges on a number line. Mark an open interval from just above 20 to just below 25 for Rajan, and another from just above 18 to just below 22 for Kumar. The overlapping region is from just above 20 to just below 22. Among the integers in the options, only 21 lies inside this region. All other listed distances stay outside at least one of the two intervals, which confirms that 21 km is the only value that makes both friends correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 20 km: Rajan says the distance is more than 20 km, so 20 km itself cannot be correct. 22 km: Kumar says the distance is less than 22 km, so 22 km itself is excluded. 19 km: This contradicts Rajan's statement that the distance is more than 20 km. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overlook the strict wording more than and less than and mistakenly include the boundary values. Another common error is to average the given ranges or the two midpoints instead of calculating the intersection. In interval questions, always pay attention to whether the inequalities are strict or allow equality, and focus on where the two conditions overlap rather than simply mixing or averaging numbers. Final Answer: The distance of Varanasi from the platform must be 21 km to satisfy both statements.

Question 18

Which of the following sentences is correct in standard English for expressing simple happiness about starting a programme?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question examines your understanding of the adverbs very and too when they modify adjectives such as happy. In everyday English usage, these words express different shades of meaning. You must select the sentence that correctly expresses simple positive emotion about starting a programme in a natural and standard way. Given Data / Assumptions: - Option a uses very happy. - Option b uses too happy. - The context is a person expressing enthusiasm about starting a program or project. - We are looking for a sentence that does not introduce unintended negative meaning. Concept / Approach: In standard English, very is used to intensify an adjective positively, without implying any problem. Saying very happy simply means highly happy. On the other hand, too often carries the idea of excess, usually suggesting a negative result or limitation, as in too tired to work or too late to catch the bus. When someone says I am too happy to start this program, it suggests that the happiness somehow prevents starting the program, which is not the intended simple positive meaning. Therefore the sentence with very happy is the correct choice for normal expression. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Consider the intended message: the speaker wants to say that starting the programme makes them very pleased or excited. Step 2: Look at option a: "I am very happy to start this program." This reads naturally as a positive statement of enthusiasm. Step 3: Very here works as a straightforward intensifier of happy and does not introduce any negative or contradictory implication. Step 4: Now examine option b: "I am too happy to start this program." In standard usage, too happy would normally mean so happy that starting the programme is difficult or impossible, which is illogical in this context. Step 5: The structure too happy to start suggests that the level of happiness prevents the action of starting, which is not what we usually want to convey. Step 6: Because option b misuses too, it cannot be considered a correct sentence to express simple enthusiasm. Step 7: Since option a is correct and option b is incorrect, the choice stating that both are correct is also wrong. Step 8: Therefore, the only correct sentence among the options is option a. Verification / Alternative check: Think of similar examples. It is natural to say I am very glad to meet you or I am very excited to join this team. In contrast, I am too glad to meet you sounds strange and would normally require a second clause showing a problem. The pattern with too usually expresses excess leading to difficulty: for example, I am too shy to speak in public. Comparing these patterns confirms that very happy is the appropriate choice in the sentence about starting the program. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b: Misuses too and implies a kind of excess that does not fit the context of simple happiness. Option c: Claims that both a and b are correct, but b is not acceptable in standard usage. Option d: States that none are correct, which is false because option a is perfectly acceptable. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes think too is simply a stronger form of very and use it whenever they want extra emphasis. In reality, too carries a negative or limiting sense most of the time. This can cause awkward sentences in exams and formal writing. When you want to show strong but positive emotion without any problem implied, very is usually safer than too. Keeping this distinction in mind helps in many vocabulary and usage questions. Final Answer: The sentence that correctly expresses simple happiness is "I am very happy to start this program."

Question 19

Which of the following sentences is punctuated correctly when using the linking word "however" between two independent clauses?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests your knowledge of punctuation when connecting two independent clauses with the adverb however. In formal writing, however used in this way is often placed after a semicolon and followed by a comma. Choosing the correctly punctuated sentence helps demonstrate understanding of both clause structure and the role of conjunctive adverbs. Given Data / Assumptions: - All options contain two ideas: the planned length of the conference and the actual length. - The word however shows contrast between the expectation and the reality. - Both parts are independent clauses that could stand alone as sentences. - We are looking for the standard punctuation pattern in this context. Concept / Approach: When a conjunctive adverb such as however, therefore, or moreover connects two independent clauses in a single sentence, the usual pattern in formal English is clause one, a semicolon, the adverb, a comma, then clause two. This structure both separates the clauses correctly and signals the contrast or relationship. A comma before however alone creates a comma splice, and missing the comma after however makes the sentence harder to read. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Recognise that "The conference was only supposed to be an hour" and "it ran for nearly two and half hours" are both complete clauses. Step 2: Look at option a: "The conference was only supposed to be an hour; however, it ran for nearly two and half hours." Here, a semicolon precedes however and a comma follows it. This matches the standard pattern. Step 3: Option b uses a comma before however and a semicolon after it: "The conference was only supposed to be an hour, however; it ran..." This creates a comma splice error before however and misuses punctuation after it. Step 4: Option c splits the clauses with a full stop but then starts however with a lowercase letter: "The conference was only supposed to be an hour. however, it ran..." This is incorrect because a new sentence must begin with a capital letter. Step 5: Option d uses a semicolon before however but omits the comma after it: "The conference was only supposed to be an hour; however it ran..." This is not the usual recommended form and may cause a slight pause problem for the reader. Step 6: Therefore, option a is the only sentence that follows the widely accepted rule for punctuating however between two independent clauses. Verification / Alternative check: You can check grammar references or recall similar constructions you have seen in textbooks: "He wanted to join us; however, he was busy." Notice the pattern of semicolon and comma. If you replace however with and or but, you would use just a comma and a coordinating conjunction, not a semicolon. This confirms that the special punctuation with however is semicolon before and comma after in a single combined sentence, exactly as in option a. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b: The comma before however creates a run on sentence, and placing a semicolon after however is not standard. Option c: Starts a new sentence after the full stop but incorrectly leaves however in lowercase. Option d: Omits the comma after however, which is recommended to show a clear pause and separate the adverb from the second clause. Common Pitfalls: Many learners treat however like a simple conjunction such as but and use only a comma before it. This often leads to comma splices. Others are unsure whether to start a new sentence or use a semicolon. A good rule is to remember that however is a conjunctive adverb, not a conjunction, so it needs stronger punctuation to join independent clauses. Practising a few model sentences with however will make the correct pattern more familiar. Final Answer: The correctly punctuated sentence is "The conference was only supposed to be an hour; however, it ran for nearly two and half hours."

Question 20

Read the sentence split into four parts: (1) A part of Special development fund is / (2) expected to be released / (3) next month and the provisional / (4) for remaining amount in the new budget. In which part does the main error occur?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks your ability to recognise incorrect word forms in a sentence. The sentence is about releasing part of a special development fund and making arrangements in a new budget. You must decide which labelled part contains the main grammatical or lexical error according to standard English usage. Given Data / Assumptions: - Full sentence: "A part of Special development fund is expected to be released next month and the provisional for remaining amount in the new budget." - Part (1): A part of Special development fund is. - Part (2): expected to be released. - Part (3): next month and the provisional. - Part (4): for remaining amount in the new budget. - The intended meaning is that part of the fund will be released and provision for the remaining amount will be made in the new budget. Concept / Approach: The key to solving this question is to focus on vocabulary choice. The noun provisional means a temporary arrangement or something made for the time being, while provision means an arrangement or allocation, especially of money or resources. In the context of a budget, the correct word is provision, not provisional. The rest of the sentence, although it could be improved stylistically, does not contain as clear a grammatical error as this misuse of provisional in part (3). Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine part (1): "A part of Special development fund is". This part is generally acceptable, though inserting the before Special development fund and using correct capitalisation would improve style. Step 2: Look at part (2): "expected to be released". This phrase correctly follows part (1) to form the clause "A part of the special development fund is expected to be released". Step 3: Consider part (3): "next month and the provisional". The phrase "and the provisional" sounds incomplete and unusual in budgetary language. Step 4: In financial and governmental contexts, we typically speak of making provision for an amount in the budget, not the provisional. The required noun is provision, meaning the act of providing or allocating. Step 5: Part (4): "for remaining amount in the new budget" fits naturally after provision, as in "provision for the remaining amount in the new budget". Step 6: Therefore, the main error is the use of the wrong word form provisional in part (3). It should be replaced with provision. Verification / Alternative check: Rewrite the sentence correctly: "A part of the special development fund is expected to be released next month, and provision for the remaining amount will be made in the new budget." In this version, the word provision clearly describes a budgetary arrangement, and the sentence flows smoothly. You can see that the only essential correction in meaning is in the phrase "and the provisional", confirming that part (3) is where the key error lies. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Part (1): While style changes such as adding the are possible, there is no fundamental grammatical error. Part (2): This part is fully correct and standard as a passive construction. Part (4): The prepositional phrase "for remaining amount in the new budget" works correctly when attached to provision. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes focus on article usage or capitalisation and miss the more serious vocabulary error. Word pairs like provision and provisional or economic and economical can be confusing, so exam questions often target them. When a sentence appears nearly correct but feels slightly off, pay special attention to whether a noun, adjective or verb form has been misused. Checking how the word is used in typical phrases, such as provision for in financial contexts, is a helpful strategy. Final Answer: The main error occurs in part (3), where "the provisional" should be "the provision".

Verification of Truth Questions