Other politicians may have claims to seniority over their peers, based upon their accomplishments and their ability to lead campaigns, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex, who is often described as merely being a junior member of the House of Representatives, has an unparalleled seniority over all of them by virtue of her prowess in social media management.
Aas merely being a junior member of the House of Representatives
Bas being a merely junior member of the House of Representatives
Cfor merely being a junior member of the House of Representatives
Das a mere junior member of the House of Representatives
Pick an option to attempt
What is wrong with the sentence. *Describe* pairs with *as*, and what follows *as* should be the thing she is described as - a noun phrase. The original wraps that noun phrase in 'merely being', a gerund that adds a word and a grammatical layer without adding meaning. Replacing it with the adjective *mere* in front of the noun says the same thing in one clean phrase.
Why the others fail.
* Option 1 simply repeats the original wording.
* Option 2 keeps *being* and shifts *merely* so that it modifies the adjective *junior* - now the claim is that she is *barely* junior, which is not the intended sense.
* Option 3 changes the preposition. One is described *as* something, not 'for' it; *for* would give a reason for the describing rather than its content.
Final Answer: as a mere junior member of the House of Representatives
The pharmaceutical company hired a consultant to supervise a taskforce studying lower salaries as to their effects on employees' morale.
Astudying what the effects lower salaries would have on employees' morale
Bstudying the effects of lower salaries on employee morale
Cfor studying what are the effects in employees' morale that lower salaries would cause
Dstudying the effects of employee morale on lower salaries
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests conciseness and clarity in cause-and-effect expressions.
When showing how one thing affects another, use direct phrasing like 'the effects of X on Y' rather than wordy, indirect constructions. Think of it like giving directions: 'Turn left at the store' beats 'What you should do is turn in the direction that would be left when you reach the store.'
Option 1 Wordy and indirect; 'what the effects would have' is unnecessarily complex.
Option 2 Perfect! Direct, clear cause-and-effect structure that's easy to follow.
Option 3 Way too wordy; sounds like it was written by committee.
Option 4 Backwards logic; suggests morale affects salaries, not the reverse.
Although the coastal city of Kundapur was once home to a flourishing maritime trade, their economy has been dependent in more recent years on the cotton textile and sugar industries.
Ait's economy had depended in more recent years
Bits economy has in more recent years depended
Cthe economy having in more recent years depended
Dits economy has depended in more recent years
Pick an option to attempt
What is wrong with the sentence. 'the coastal city of Kundapur' is one city, so the possessive referring back to it must be singular. The sentence writes 'their economy', which has no plural noun to point at, and the fix is *its*. The tense also wants tightening: with 'in more recent years' the natural form is the present perfect, since the dependence began earlier and still holds.
Why the others fail.
* Option 1 makes the possessive worse rather than better. *It's* is the contraction of *it is*, and the past perfect *had depended* would place the dependence before some other past event that the sentence never supplies.
* Option 2 keeps the right possessive but wedges the time phrase between the auxiliary and the participle, which reads awkwardly next to the clean alternative.
* Option 3 replaces the finite verb with a participle. The main clause is then left with no verb of its own, so the sentence never completes.
Final Answer: its economy has depended in more recent years
Besides offering physiological rewards such as toned muscles, when regular karate is practiced the body can be turned into a dangerous weapon.
Aone can turn the body into a dangerous weapon through karate, if it is practiced regularly
Bthe body can be turned into a dangerous weapon as a result of karate if practiced regularly
Cwhen karate is practiced regularly, the body can be turned into a dangerous weapon
Dkarate, if practiced regularly, can turn the body into a dangerous weapon
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests dangling/misplaced modifiers and sentence clarity.
When a sentence starts with a descriptive phrase, it should clearly connect to the main subject. Think of it like pointing-if you say 'Besides being delicious, when pizza is eaten...' it sounds awkward. Better: 'Pizza, when eaten hot, is delicious.' The subject should be crystal clear and directly connected.
Option 1 Changes subject to 'one' and adds unnecessary wordiness-awkward pivot.
Option 2 'As a result of' makes it wordy and clunky-unnecessary detour.
Option 3 Keeps the awkward 'when' structure-doesn't fix the original problem.
Option 4 Makes karate the clear subject throughout-clean and direct connection.
Due to the progress in the field of modern medicine and advances in nutrition and hygiene, less people die every year from infectious diseases then ever before.
Afewer people die every year from infectious diseases then ever before.
Bless people die every year from infectious diseases then ever before.
Cfewer people die every year from infectious diseases than ever before.
Devery year, fewer people die from infectious diseases than have ever before.
Pick an option to attempt
What is wrong with the sentence. Two separate errors, and the right option is the one that repairs both. *Less* is for quantities you measure; people are counted, so it must be *fewer*. And the comparison needs *than* - 'then' is about sequence in time, not comparison.
Why the others fail.
* Option 1 fixes only the first error, leaving 'then ever before' uncorrected.
* Option 2 is the original sentence, carrying both errors forward.
* Option 4 does correct both words, which makes it the one worth a second look. But it rearranges the sentence to front 'every year', and ends 'than have ever before' - an auxiliary that does not match the plain present *die* it is being compared with. A correction question asks for the cleanest repair, not the most rewriting.
Final Answer: fewer people die every year from infectious diseases than ever before.
The animal activist has raised awareness not only on the plight of abandoned dogs, but also on overworked bulls and temple elephants.
Aon the plight of not only the abandoned dogs, but also on those of overworked bulls
Bnot only on the plight of the abandoned dogs, but also on that of overworked bulls
Cthe plight of abandoned dogs, as well as the over worked bulls
Dthe plight of abandoned dogs, but also on overworked bulls
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests parallelism in 'not only...but also' constructions and proper preposition usage.
When using 'not only...but also,' both parts must have the same grammatical structure, like matching puzzle pieces. You 'raise awareness ON' something (not just 'raise awareness' something). Think of it as putting spotlight ON issues.
Option 1 'Those of' creates awkward reference and breaks the parallel structure.
Option 2 Perfect parallelism with 'on the plight...but also on that of.'
Option 3 Missing 'on' after 'raised awareness' - grammatically incomplete phrase.
Option 4 Missing 'on' and breaks parallelism between 'plight of' and 'on.'
Among scientists, the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and the genetic code it incorporates is *widely regarded to be one of the most significant scientific discovery* of the twentieth century.
Aregarded for being one of the most significant scientific discoveries
Bregarded as one of the most significant scientific discoveries
Cregarded like one of the most significant scientific discovery
Dregarded being one of the most significant scientific discoveries
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: We are doing a sentence correction check focusing on idiomatic preposition usage and basic noun agreement. The original sentence has a double glitch: it uses the clunky phrase "regarded to be" and then fumbles the pluralization at the end. We need to patch both errors to make it grammatically flawless.
Step 1: Fix the idiom. In standard English grammar, the verb "regard" is strictly paired with "as" when you are expressing how something is viewed or considered (e.g., "She is regarded as the GOAT"). Saying "regarded to be," "regarded like," or "regarded for being" is grammatically sus and fails the idiom check.
Step 2: Fix the noun agreement (The "One of the..." rule). The phrase "one of the..." literally implies you are selecting a single item out of a *group* of multiple items. Therefore, the noun that follows must always be plural. You can't be "one of the most significant scientific *discovery*." It inherently has to be a group of *discoveries*.
Step 3: Evaluate the options using our two rules.
* Option (A) uses "regarded for being," which is the wrong idiom.
* Option (C) uses "regarded like" (wrong idiom) and keeps the singular "discovery" (grammar L).
* Option (D) uses "regarded being," which is missing the preposition entirely and sounds completely broken.
* Option (B) correctly uses "regarded as" and correctly ends with the plural "discoveries." Absolute W.
Final Answer: Option (B)
The negotiations are unsuccessful, and the Boards' hopes to continuing talks on a future deal seems to be increasingly improbable.
ABoard’s hopes to continue talks on a future deal seem
BBoard’s hopes to continuing talks on a future deal seems
CBoards’ hopes on continued talks on a future deal seem
DBoards’ hopes to continued talks on a future deal seems
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: This question tests subject-verb agreement and infinitive construction.
Step 1: Subject-verb agreement means the verb must match its subject in number (singular/plural). When using infinitives, we pair 'to' with the base form of the verb, like 'to continue' not 'to continuing.' Think of it like a dance - the subject and verb need to move in sync, and infinitives follow a strict two-step pattern.
Step 2: Option 1 Perfect grammar tango: singular board, plural hopes, correct infinitive.
Step 3: Option 2 Wrong verb agreement and mangled infinitive - double grammar fail.
Step 4: Option 3 Awkward 'hopes on continued' phrasing disrupts the smooth flow.
Step 5: Option 4 Triple trouble: wrong possessive, wrong infinitive, wrong verb agreement.
Final Answer: Board's hopes to continue talks on a future deal seem
My aunt Seema was the most generous of all the members of our family. Whenever we went out for dinner, she always insisted to pay for the meal.
Aon and paid for the meal
Bthat she had paid for the meal
Cthat she will be paying for the meal
Dthat she pay for the meal
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests the subjunctive mood after verbs of demand or insistence.
When we use verbs like 'insist,' 'demand,' or 'suggest,' they're followed by 'that' + the base form of the verb (subjunctive mood). Think of it as expressing a wish or demand for something to happen. For example: 'I insist that he arrive on time' (not 'arrives').
Option 1 Wrong structure - 'insisted on' needs a gerund, not 'paid.'
Option 2 Past perfect suggests she already paid before insisting - backwards logic!
Option 3 Future progressive doesn't work after 'insisted that' - grammatical mismatch.
Option 4 Perfect! Uses subjunctive mood with base form 'pay' after 'insisted.'
If I had known that you needed to go to the airport yesterday, I could drive you there.
Ashould have driven you there.
Bwould have driven you there.
Cwould drive you there.
Dshould drive you there.
Pick an option to attempt
What is wrong with the sentence. The if-clause is 'If I had known' - past perfect - and it reports something that did not happen: the speaker did not know. That is the third conditional, the pattern English uses for unreal situations in the past, and it requires *would have* plus a past participle in the main clause.
'Could drive' is present in force, so it collides both with the past-perfect if-clause and with 'yesterday'. Repairing the pattern gives *would have driven you there*.
Why the others fail.
* Option 1 is grammatical English but changes the meaning. 'Should have driven' expresses reproach - an obligation the speaker failed to meet - rather than the consequence a different past would have produced.
* Option 3 is the second conditional. 'Would drive' pairs with 'if I knew' and points at the present, which 'yesterday' rules out.
* Option 4 offers present advice, leaving both the tense and the sense of the sentence unresolved.
Final Answer: would have driven you there.
Thank goodness, the damage to the car was *neglectful*.
Awas negligible
Bwas neglecting
Cwas neglectable
Dwas negligent
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: We are dealing with a vocabulary-based sentence correction question that tests your ability to distinguish between similar-sounding words. The original sentence claims the damage was "neglectful," which is a massive vocabulary L. We need the correct adjective that means "minor or insignificant."
Step 1: Analyze the context. The sentence starts with "Thank goodness," giving off major relief vibes. This means the car crash didn't total the vehicle; the damage is basically just a tiny scratch that you can buff out and ignore.
Step 2: Vibe check the options through a process of elimination.
* The original word "neglectful" and Option (D) "negligent" both describe a *person* who is careless or failing to do their duties (like a negligent driver). Inanimate damage cannot be negligent.
* Option (B) "was neglecting" is an active verb phrase. Damage doesn't actively ignore or neglect things.
* Option (C) "was neglectable" sounds like it makes sense, but it is actually fake English. Don't let the test makers gaslight you with made-up words.
* Option (A) "was negligible" is the absolute W. It is the real, dictionary-approved adjective meaning "so small or unimportant that it can be safely ignored." It perfectly describes a minor dent.
Final Answer: Option (A)
While the bustling city streets were filled with the cacophony of honking horns and chatter of pedestrians, the serene countryside, where time seemed to move at a slower pace, provide a welcome retreat for their seeking solace amidst the chaos of urban living.
Aprovided a welcoming retreat for who seek solace
Bprovides a welcome retreat for them seeking solace
Cprovides a welcoming retreat for those seeking solace
Dprovided a welcome retreat for those seeking solace
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: This question tests verb tense consistency and pronoun usage in complex sentences.
Step 1: When you start a sentence in the past tense, you need to stick with it throughout-like keeping the same rhythm in a dance. The sentence begins with 'were filled' and 'seemed to move' (both past tense), so the main verb should follow suit. Also, 'those seeking' is the proper way to refer to people doing an action, not 'who seek' or 'them seeking.'
Step 2: Option 1 Wrong pronoun 'who' and awkward 'seek' instead of 'seeking.'
Step 3: Option 2 Present tense 'provides' clashes with past tense context.
Step 4: Option 3 Present tense 'provides' doesn't match the established past tense.
Step 5: Option 4 Perfect! Past tense 'provided' and proper 'those seeking' construction.
Final Answer: provided a welcome retreat for those seeking solace
Listening to the recording of cricket commentary from the past can be great fun. Especially, the last few overs, when the best players are gone, and the tailenders try their best to run between the wickets without getting out. This is when you realise that nothing much has changed, hasn't it?
Anothing much has changed, has it?
Bnothing much has changed, would it?
Cnothing much is changed, isn't it?
Dnothing much has changed, hasn't it?
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests tag questions.
Tag questions are those little 'isn't it?' or 'don't you?' bits we add to statements to seek agreement or confirmation. The golden rule: if your statement is positive, your tag goes negative, and vice versa. Plus, the auxiliary verb must match! Example: 'You're coming, aren't you?' (positive statement + negative tag with matching 'are').
Option 1 Perfect! Negative tag with matching auxiliary verb 'has.'
Option 2 Wrong auxiliary verb - 'would' doesn't match 'has changed.'
Option 3 Uses 'is' instead of 'has' - tense mismatch error.
Option 4 Positive tag after positive statement - breaks the opposition rule.
The Principal and professors are authorized to sanction leave to a student provided she will have a good attendance record.
Aprovided she has a good attendance record.
Bprovided she will have a good attendance record.
Cprovided she had a good attendance record.
Dprovided that a good attendance record is maintained by her.
Pick an option to attempt
What is wrong with the sentence. Here 'provided' means *on the condition that*, and it introduces a conditional clause. English does not put *will* inside such a clause, even when the condition points to the future - the same rule that gives *if you ask nicely* rather than *if you will ask nicely*. The present tense carries the future sense by itself.
So 'will have' has to become *has*.
Why the others fail.
* Option 2 simply repeats the original error.
* Option 3 shifts the condition into the past. *Had* would describe a record already settled, whereas the sentence states a standing policy that applies whenever leave is sought.
* Option 4 is grammatically sound but turns a crisp active clause into a wordy passive - 'a good attendance record is maintained by her'. A correction question asks for the best available version, not merely a permissible one.
Final Answer: provided she has a good attendance record.
Although the new policy aims to *increase efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing employee satisfaction*, some employees feel that the changes are too abrupt and poorly communicated.
Aincrease efficiency, reducing the costs and enhanced employee satisfaction
Bincreasing efficiency, reducing of costs, and enhancing of employee satisfaction
Cincrease the efficiency, reduce the costs and enhancing employee satisfaction
Dincrease efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance employee satisfaction
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: We are dealing with a classic grammar boss fight: parallel structure (or parallelism). The original sentence is dropping a list of three goals, but the verbs are completely out of sync, making the flow incredibly clunky. We need all the items in this series to match energies and use the exact same grammatical form.
Step 1: Identify the anchor of the sentence. The list follows the phrase "aims to...". Because of the infinitive marker "to," the very first verb is in its base form ("increase"). To keep the timeline perfectly parallel, every subsequent verb in that list must also be in its base form. It should read like a synchronized routine: *to do X, do Y, and do Z*.
Step 2: Vibe check the options to find the perfectly parallel list.
* The original sentence mixes "increase" (base), "reducing" (gerund/-ing), and "enhancing" (gerund/-ing). That's a massive grammar L.
* Option (A) gives us "increase" (base), "reducing" (-ing), and "enhanced" (past tense). Absolute chaos. Mismatched vibes all around.
* Option (B) gives us "increasing," "reducing of," and "enhancing of." You can't say a policy "aims to increasing." Plus, the added "of" makes it super awkward.
* Option (C) gives us "increase," "reduce," but ruins the combo breaker at the end with "enhancing." So close, yet so far.
* Option (D) hits us with "increase," "reduce," and "enhance." All three are clean, base-form verbs marching in perfect lockstep. Absolute W.
Final Answer: Option (D)
I had been having a headache, so I will not attend the meeting.
Ahave headache
Bwas having a headache
Chave a headache
Dused to have a headache
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: This question tests tense consistency and cause-effect relationships.
Step 1: When explaining why you'll do something in the future, use present tense for current conditions. Think of it like: 'I'm sick now, so I won't go tomorrow.' The headache happening now justifies the future decision.
Step 2: Option 1 Missing 'a' makes this grammatically incorrect, like saying 'have cold.'
Step 3: Option 2 Past tense doesn't explain a future decision - that headache's over!
Step 4: Option 3 Present tense perfectly explains why you won't attend later.
Step 5: Option 4 Past habit doesn't justify future actions - sounds randomly nostalgic.
Final Answer: have a headache
Justin couldn't understand why his friend had refused to work in a company that offered him a huge salary. If it had been him in his friend's place, he would definitely accepted such an offer.
Ahave definitely accept such an offer
Bhave definitely have accepted such an offer
Cdefinitely accepted such an offer
Dhave definitely accepted such an offer
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests third conditional structure.
The third conditional expresses hypothetical situations in the past using 'If + past perfect, would have + past participle.' It's like saying 'What if things had been different back then?' For example: 'If I had studied harder, I would have passed the exam.'
Option 1 Wrong verb form - 'accept' should be 'accepted' after 'have.'
Option 2 Double trouble - using 'have' twice makes it grammatically incorrect.
Option 3 Missing the 'have' - incomplete conditional structure without the auxiliary.
Option 4 Perfect fit - completes 'would have definitely accepted' correctly.
When all the words on the page got scrambled, she quickly pressed undo, after which the document reverted back to its original state.
Adocument reverted back to it's original state.
Bdocument reverted back to original state.
Cdocument reverted to it's original state.
Ddocument reverted to its original state.
Pick an option to attempt
Two separate faults, and only one option repairs both.
*Redundancy.* To revert already means to go back, so 'reverted back' states it twice - the same fault as *return back*.
*The possessive.* 'Its' shows possession; 'it's' is the contraction of *it is*. Written out, 'it's original state' reads as *it is original state*.
The version that fixes both is 'reverted to its original state'.
Why the others fail.
* Option 1 keeps the redundant *back* and adds the wrong 'it's original state'.
* Option 2 clears the possessive problem by deleting the word entirely, but keeps *back* and leaves the noun bare, with neither article nor possessive.
* Option 3 correctly drops *back* but still writes 'it's original state', so the possessive is wrong.
Final Answer: document reverted to its original state.
<u>If the President knew that his allies would let him down</u> so suddenly, he would have handled them with the greatest care.
AHad the President knowledge that his allies would let him down
BHad the President known that his allies would let him down
CIf the President could know beforehand that his allies would let him down
DIf the President knew that his allies can let him down
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: We are dealing with a classic grammar boss fight: the third conditional (also known as the "unreal past"). You use this when you're crying over spilled milk—talking about a hypothetical scenario in the past that literally never happened. The original sentence fumbles the bag because it pairs the simple past tense ("knew") in the *if-clause* with a "would have + past participle" in the main clause. We need to fix the timeline.
Step 1: Learn the conditional formula. The standard formula for a third conditional is: *If + past perfect (had + verb), would have + past participle*. So, it should technically be "If the President *had known*..." But wait, that's not an option! Here is the grammar plot twist: you can legally drop the "If" and invert the subject and verb to get the exact same meaning. "If he had known" transforms into the much classier "Had he known."
Step 2: Vibe check the options through a process of elimination.
* The original sentence "If the President knew" is a grammar L because "knew" is simple past, which doesn't match the "would have handled" energy.
* Option (A) "Had the President knowledge" sounds like an NPC from a fantasy game. It is incredibly clunky because it uses a noun ("knowledge") instead of the required past participle verb ("known").
* Option (C) "could know beforehand" completely breaks the required past perfect structure.
* Option (D) mixes the past tense ("knew") with the present tense ("can"). It's giving time traveler paradox. Big mismatch.
* Option (B) "Had the President known" is the absolute W. It perfectly executes the inverted third conditional structure, smoothly meaning "If the President had known," and keeps the grammatical timeline completely flawless.
Final Answer: Option (B)
He is very careless and has loosed his keys all the time.
Ais loosing his keys
Bhas loses his keys
Cwas losing his keys
Dloses his keys
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: This question tests verb forms and tense usage for habitual actions.
Step 1: When describing habits or repeated actions (like 'all the time'), we use simple present tense. Also, don't confuse 'lose' (to misplace) with 'loose' (not tight) - they're completely different words!
Step 2: Option 1 Wrong verb and wrong tense - 'loosing' isn't even a real word.
Step 3: Option 2 You can't mix 'has' with simple present 'loses' - grammar chaos!
Step 4: Option 3 Past continuous doesn't work for ongoing habits happening 'all the time.'
Step 5: Option 4 Perfect! Simple present tense for his annoying key-losing habit.
Final Answer: loses his keys
When you play the 'Secret Santa', you are expected to buy a gift for whoever you are assigned, without letting them know that you are the one buying the gift.
Awho you are assigned
Bwhomever you are assigned
Cwhom you are assigned
Dwhoever you are assigned
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests the proper usage of who/whom and whoever/whomever.
These pronouns follow a simple rule: use 'who/whoever' for subjects (like 'he/she') and 'whom/whomever' for objects (like 'him/her'). Think of it like Secret Santa assignments - you wouldn't say 'Santa assigned he a gift,' you'd say 'Santa assigned him a gift.' Same logic applies here!
Option 1 Incorrect: 'Who' is for subjects, but here it's receiving the assignment.
Option 2 Correct: 'Whomever' properly shows they're the object being assigned to you.
Option 3 Incorrect: 'Whom' is right grammatically, but we need the compound 'whomever.'
Option 4 Incorrect: 'Whoever' is for subjects, not objects receiving assignments.
His talk on heritage sites has picked up my interest.
Aaroused
Badopted
Ccaught
Dbrightened
Pick an option to attempt
What the sentence needs. 'Picked up my interest' is the wrong pairing. You pick up a language, a habit, a signal or an infection, but interest that did not exist before has to be *awakened*, and English has a settled verb for that.
*Aroused my interest* is the standard collocation.
Why the others fail.
* Option 2 belongs to other objects entirely - you adopt a child, a policy or a stance, never an interest.
* Option 3 is the closest rival and worth pausing on. *Caught my interest* is perfectly idiomatic, but it implies attention already there to be captured, whereas the talk is what created the interest in the first place.
* Option 4 applies to rooms, colours and moods; brightening an interest is not English.
Final Answer: aroused
When I had to leave town due to office work, I <u>had my brother to give food to my dog</u> twice a day.
Ahad my brother feed my dog
Bhad my brother giving food to my dog
Chad my brother who fed my dog
Dhad my brother to feed my dog
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: We are checking your knowledge on causative verbs, specifically the verb "have." When you delegate a chore and make someone else do the heavy lifting, English grammar has a strict formula for it. The original sentence fumbles the bag by slipping an extra "to" into the mix.
Step 1: Learn the causative "have" rule. When you "have someone do something," you are essentially assigning them a task. The exact formula is: *have + person + base form of the verb*. You never use the infinitive "to." Think of it like a direct transaction: you say "I had the mechanic fix my car," never "I had the mechanic *to* fix my car."
Step 2: Vibe check the options to find the perfect formula.
* The original phrase "had my brother to give food" uses the forbidden "to" infinitive. Grammar L.
* Option (B) "had my brother giving food" uses the "-ing" form instead of the base verb. Incorrect vibes.
* Option (C) "had my brother who fed my dog" creates a clunky relative clause. It completely changes the meaning from "I assigned him this task" to just casually stating a fact about a brother you happen to have.
* Option (D) "had my brother to feed my dog" still clings to the forbidden "to."
* Option (A) "had my brother feed my dog" is the absolute W. It perfectly follows the *have + person + base verb* (had + my brother + feed) structure without any extra fluff. Flawless execution.
Final Answer: Option (A)
In my opinion, the psychological thrillers of Alfred Hitchcock, who is a master of suspense and horror, have more lasting impact than any other filmmaker in history.
Ahad more lasting impact than any filmmaker
Bare having more lasting impact than those of other filmmakers
Chas had a more lasting impact than those of other filmmakers
Dhave had a more lasting impact than those of any other filmmaker
Pick an option to attempt
The Setup: This question tests subject-verb agreement and parallel comparison structures.
Step 1: When comparing things, make sure your verb matches your subject in number, and compare apples to apples. 'The thrillers have had impact' needs a plural verb, and we're comparing Hitchcock's thrillers to other filmmakers' thrillers (not the filmmakers themselves). Think of it like comparing your cooking skills to your friends' cooking skills, not to your friends directly!
Step 2: Option 1 Wrong tense and 'any filmmaker' illogically includes Hitchcock himself.
Step 3: Option 2 'Are having' sounds awkward for describing lasting, ongoing impact.
Step 4: Option 3 'Has had' is singular but 'thrillers' is plural-mismatch!
Step 5: Option 4 Perfect! 'Have had' matches plural subject, compares correctly.
Final Answer: have had a more lasting impact than those of any other filmmaker
This question tests affect vs. effect and subject-verb agreement.
Affect is a verb meaning 'to influence' (like affecting someone's mood), while effect is a noun meaning 'a result' (like the effect of rain). Since 'setting' is singular, the verb needs an -s ending to match.
Option 1 Wrong verb form, missing apostrophe, and unnecessary plural.
Option 2 Perfect! Correct verb with proper -s ending and possessive.
Option 3 Uses noun 'effects' instead of verb, plus wrong plural.
Option 4 Missing the -s ending that singular subjects require.
He was having a difficult time, but never once he complained.
Anot once did he complain.
Bnot once did he give the complaint.
Cnot once any complaining happened.
Dnot once he complained.
Pick an option to attempt
What is wrong with the sentence. When a negative expression such as *not once*, *never* or *rarely* is moved to the front of a clause, English inverts the subject and the auxiliary, exactly as it does when forming a question. 'Never once he complained' keeps ordinary statement order, so the required inversion is missing.
The repair supplies the auxiliary and inverts it: *did he complain*.
Why the others fail.
* Option 2 inverts correctly but wrecks the verb. 'Give the complaint' is not how English expresses complaining.
* Option 3 sidesteps the problem rather than solving it, swapping the person for an abstract subject; 'any complaining happened' is unidiomatic.
* Option 4 is the trap. It rewords the opening but preserves the original uninverted order - 'not once he complained' repeats the exact fault being tested.
Final Answer: not once did he complain.
The place where her father disappeared and the reason why he did are unknown to her.
Aher father disappeared and the reason why he did
Bwhere her father disappeared and the reason he did
Cher father disappeared and the reason he did
Dwhere her father disappeared and the reason why he did
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests parallel structure and avoiding redundancy.
Parallel structure means matching grammatical forms in related sentence parts. Think of it like matching socks-both elements should have the same 'style.' Also, we avoid redundant words when the meaning is already clear, like saying 'the reason why' when 'the reason' alone works perfectly.
Option 1 -> Missing 'where' breaks the parallel structure completely.
Option 2 -> Perfect parallel structure: both parts match grammatically and concisely.
Option 3 -> Missing 'where' disrupts the balanced structure needed here.
Option 4 -> 'Why' is redundant since 'reason' already implies it.
This question tests comparative vs. superlative forms.
When comparing two things, use comparative forms like 'better' or 'worse.' When comparing three or more things, use superlative forms like 'best' or 'worst.' Think of it like a race: two runners compete for who's 'faster,' but three or more compete for who's 'fastest.'
Option 1 -> Uses 'best' for two teams-like calling a two-person race 'fastest.'
Option 2 -> Same 'best' problem, plus 'one of' suggests more teams exist.
Option 3 -> 'Better' is right, but 'one team' sounds awkwardly redundant here.
Option 4 -> Perfect! Uses 'better' for two teams with clean, direct phrasing.
After sensing a problem with the factory workers, the personnel officer demanded to know who the union leaders had contacted to conduct the petition drive.
Awhom the union leaders had contacted
Bwho had the union leaders had contacted
Cwhom the union leaders have contacted
Dwho union leaders contacted
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests who vs. whom usage and verb tense consistency.
Think of 'who' as the doer (like 'he') and 'whom' as the receiver (like 'him'). If you can substitute 'him,' use 'whom.' Example: 'To whom did you give the cookie?' (You gave it to him, not he.)
Option 1 -> Correct! 'Whom' receives the action, 'had contacted' matches timeline.
Option 2 -> Double 'had' makes this a grammatical train wreck.
Option 3 -> Right pronoun, wrong tense-'have contacted' clashes with past context.
Option 4 -> Too casual for formal writing, drops 'whom' and articles.
His wrongdoing was completely exposed, but not once he apologised for his actions.
Anot once did he apologise
Bnever he made an apology
Cnot once did he give apology
Dnot once he made an apology
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests inversion after negative adverbials.
When you start a sentence with negative words like 'not once,' 'never,' or 'rarely,' English demands you flip the usual word order-like doing a grammatical backflip! The auxiliary verb jumps in front of the subject. Think of it like 'Never have I seen such chaos!' instead of the awkward 'Never I have seen such chaos!'
Option 1 -> ✓ Perfect inversion: 'did' leaps before 'he' like a grammatical gymnast.
Option 2 -> ✗ Missing inversion after 'never'-sounds like broken robot English.
Option 3 -> ✗ Good inversion, but forgot 'an' before 'apology'-almost there!
Option 4 -> ✗ No inversion after 'not once'-sounds clunky and unnatural.
The Municipal Council can no longer wash its hands off its responsibilities.
Awash its hands from its
Bwash their hands off their
Cwash their hand of their
Dwash its hands of its
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests idiomatic expressions and pronoun agreement with collective nouns.
The idiom 'wash one's hands of something' means to refuse responsibility for something-like saying 'I'm done with this mess!' Municipal Council is a singular collective noun (like 'team' or 'company'), so it takes the singular pronoun 'its,' and the idiom specifically requires the preposition 'of.'
Option 1 -> Wrong preposition-you wash hands 'of' problems, not 'from' them.
Option 2 -> 'Their' treats council as plural, plus wrong preposition 'off.'
Option 3 -> 'Their' is wrong, and it's 'hands' not 'hand' in idioms.
Option 4 -> Perfect idiom with correct singular pronoun agreement-nails it!
The letter states that one can avail the service offered by the company till June 20, 2019.
Aavail the service on offer from
Bavail the service on offer by
Cavail of the service offered by
Davail of the service offered from
Pick an option to attempt
This question tests the correct usage of 'avail of' and prepositions with service providers.
'Avail' means to take advantage of something, but in formal English it needs its trusty sidekick 'of' - like 'avail yourself OF the opportunity.' Plus, services are 'offered BY' companies, not 'from' them (companies aren't locations!).
Option 1 -> Missing 'of' after avail - like Batman without Robin.
Option 2 -> Also missing 'of' - still incomplete without this essential preposition.
Option 3 -> Perfect combo: 'avail of' + 'offered by' company.
Option 4 -> Has 'avail of' but 'offered from' sounds awkward here.
Don't get mad at me. I did not invite a thousand people to our wedding. All I did was creating a link and sended it.
Ato create a link and sent it
Bcreate a link and send it
Ccreated a link and sent it
Dcreating a link and sending it
Pick an option to attempt
Clue: The underlined part has two problems: wrong verb form after 'all I did was' AND the non-word 'sended'.
Rule: After 'all I did was', use the BARE INFINITIVE (no 'to').
Thought Process Breakdown:
The question asks for the correct grammatical structure to replace the underlined portion.
→ The phrase begins with "All I did was", which requires a bare infinitive (or parallel verb forms linked by 'and').
→ "Creating a link and sended it" contains the non-word "sended" and incorrect gerund form.
→ Option B uses "create a link and send it", which provides correct parallel bare infinitives following the structure.
Option Analysis:
* 🔴 Option A→ Mixed Tense → Mixes infinitive with past tense ("to create... and sent it").
* 🟢 Option B→ Correct → Uses correct parallel bare infinitives ("create a link and send it").
* 🔴 Option C→ Wrong Tense → Uses past tense incorrectly after "all I did was".
* 🔴 Option D→ Suboptimal Form → Gerunds are possible, but the standard parallel pattern here is the bare infinitive.
Although she has not been at her best this year, imagine that she would win this match against the reigning champion, no one would doubt her calibre as a sportsperson.
Ashould she be winning this match against
Bimagine if she win this match against
Cshould she win this match against
Dimagine that she is winning this match against
Pick an option to attempt
Clue: The sentence is a conditional: IF she wins, no one would doubt her. We need a clean 'if'-style structure.
Answer: Option 3 - 'should she win this match against' (inverted conditional = 'if she should win').
Thought Process Breakdown:
The question asks for the correct grammatical structure to replace the awkward underlined conditional phrase.
→ "Imagine that she would win" breaks the standard conditional flow required before the main clause ("no one would doubt...").
→ "Imagine if she win" is grammatically broken (subject-verb disagreement: 'she win' should be 'she wins').
→ "Should she be winning" uses an awkward progressive form; winning is a single event, not an ongoing action here.
→ "Should she win" provides a clean, elegant inverted conditional ("if she should win") that fits the sentence perfectly.
Option Analysis:
* 🔴 Option A→ Awkward Aspect → Uses an ongoing progressive form ("be winning") instead of a simple conditional.
* 🔴 Option B→ Grammatical Error → Disagreement between singular subject and verb ("she win").
* 🟢 Option C→ Correct → Clean inverted conditional ("should she win" = "if she should win").
* 🔴 Option D→ Flow Disruption → Retains the awkward "imagine that" framing instead of a true conditional.
The college now has a creator to help students with their personal as well as academic challenges.
Acouncilor
Bconsoler
Ccounsellor
Dcontroller
Pick an option to attempt
Clue: Helps students with PERSONAL and ACADEMIC challenges. We need a word for an advisor.
Answer: Option 3 - counsellor (advisor, especially on personal or academic matters).
Thought Process Breakdown:
The question asks for the correct word to replace the underlined term ("creator") in the context of helping students with personal and academic issues.
→ "Councilor" refers to a member of a political council or town council, not an academic advisor.
→ "Consoler" means someone who comforts grief, which is too narrow for everyday academic and personal counseling.
→ "Controller" means someone who controls finances or systems, completely out of context.
→ "Counsellor" is the correct term for a professional advisor who helps students navigate personal and academic challenges.
Option Analysis:
* 🔴 Option A→ Wrong Context → Refers to a member of a council (e.g., town council).
* 🔴 Option B→ Wrong Focus → Means someone who comforts grief rather than providing general guidance.
* 🟢 Option C→ Correct → Means an advisor, especially for personal and academic matters.
* 🔴 Option D→ Wrong Meaning → Refers to a person who exercises control or management over financial/administrative systems.
Even as the team's die-hard fans lost all hopes of a win, alone came the last batsman and surpassed them with three sixes in a row, leading the team to its victory.
Aalong came the last batsman and superannuated
Balone came the last batsman and surprised
Calong came the last batsman and surprised
Dalone came the last batsman and superannuated
Pick an option to attempt
Clue: Two errors in the underlined part. The batsman ARRIVED unexpectedly and did something amazing for the FANS.
Answer: Option 3 - 'along came the last batsman and surprised'.
Thought Process Breakdown:
The question asks for the correct phrase to fix two distinct errors in the underlined section.
→Error 1: "Alone came" is incorrect; the idiomatic phrasing for someone arriving unexpectedly is "along came X" ('X arrived').
→Error 2: "Surpassed them" (the fans) makes no logical sense—you don't surpass fans. The batsman *surprised* them by winning against the odds.
→ Option C is the only choice that corrects both errors simultaneously ("along came" + "surprised").
Option Analysis:
* 🔴 Option A→ Vocabulary Error → Uses "superannuated" (retired due to age), which is entirely wrong.
* 🔴 Option B→ Unfixed Idiom → Keeps the wrong "alone came" structure instead of fixing the idiom.
* 🟢 Option C→ Correct → Fixes both errors ("along came" for arrival and "surprised" for the fans).
* 🔴 Option D→ Multiple Errors → Retains the incorrect "alone came" and uses the wrong vocabulary word "superannuated".
The judge has disposed himself from the case because of his prior association with the company.
Arecanted
Brecused
Crefrained
Drecouped
Pick an option to attempt
Clue: A judge withdrawing from a case due to prior association = a classic legal scenario.
Answer: Option 2 - recused (formal verb for a judge withdrawing due to conflict of interest).
Thought Process Breakdown:
The question asks for the correct legal term to replace "disposed" when a judge withdraws from a case.
→ "Recanted" means withdrawing a statement or confession, which is the wrong context.
→ "Recused" is the exact formal verb used when a judge disqualifies themselves due to a conflict of interest.
→ "Refrained" means holding back from an action, but it requires the preposition 'from' and isn't the specific legal term.
→ "Recouped" means recovering money or losses, which is completely irrelevant.
Option Analysis:
* 🔴 Option A→ Wrong Context → Means withdrawing a statement, not a legal case.
* 🟢 Option B→ Correct → The precise legal term for a judge withdrawing due to a conflict of interest.
* 🔴 Option C→ Wrong Grammar/Scope → Means holding back, but does not fit the legal role or prepositional usage.
* 🔴 Option D→ Wrong Meaning → Means recovering money or losses.