Grammar - Study Mode

[#291] Three Idiots . . . . . really a watchable movie.
Correct Answer

(B) is

Explanation

Solution: This question tests your understanding of subject-verb agreement . The subject of the sentence is "Three Idiots," which is a singular noun phrase even though it refers to multiple people. Think of it as a single title referring to one movie. Therefore, we need a singular verb to agree with the singular subject. Option A ("are") is a plural verb. Option B ("is") is a singular verb. Option C ("superb") is an adjective, not a verb. Option D ("do") is a plural verb. The correct verb to use is "is" because it agrees with the singular subject "Three Idiots." The complete sentence is: "Three Idiots is really a watchable movie."

[#292] I don’t know the city . . . . . he lives.
Correct Answer

(B) where

Explanation

Solution: The correct answer is B: where . First, let's define the terms. Where: An interrogative adverb used to ask about a place or location. What: An interrogative pronoun used to ask about things or which thing. When: An interrogative adverb used to ask about time. Which: An interrogative pronoun used to ask about a choice from a defined set of options. The sentence "I don’t know the city . . . . . he lives" requires an interrogative word to specify the location where the person lives. Therefore, only "where" fits grammatically and contextually. The sentence should read: "I don’t know the city where he lives." The clause "where he lives" acts as a relative clause modifying "city", specifying which city is being discussed. Options A, C, and D are incorrect because they don't address the question of location. "What" asks about the identity of a thing, "when" asks about time, and "which" asks about a selection from a set of possibilities. None of these are relevant to the location of the city.

[#293] He always stammers in public meetings, but his today’s speech . . . . . . . . . .
Correct Answer

(D) was surprisingly fluent.

Explanation

Solution: Defining "stammer": To stammer means to speak with sudden involuntary stops and repetitions. Analyzing the Options: Option A: was fairly audible to everyone. This is plausible, as audibility doesn't directly contradict stammering. He could have stammered slightly but still been heard. Option B: was not liked by the audience. This doesn't directly address the contrast introduced by his usual stammering. The audience's opinion is unrelated to his fluency. Option C: as not received by the audience. This is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make sense in context. Option D: was surprisingly fluent. This option is the best fit. "Surprisingly fluent" directly contrasts with his usual stammering. It shows that something unexpected and positive happened in his speech delivery. Correct Answer Explanation: The sentence requires an answer that highlights a positive change in his speech, contrasting his usual stammering. Option D, "was surprisingly fluent," perfectly captures this contrast. The word "surprisingly" emphasizes the unexpected nature of his fluent speech, making it the most suitable and grammatically correct choice.

[#294] We have been in Sector: 8, Gandhinagar . . . . . . . 1997.
Correct Answer

(D) since

Explanation

Solution: Prepositions of time indicate the duration or point in time of an action or state. "For" indicates a duration of time. "From" indicates a starting point in time. "About" indicates an approximation of time. "Since" indicates a point in time from which an action or state has continued to the present. The correct answer is D: since . The sentence describes a continuous state (being in Sector 8, Gandhinagar) that began in 1997 and continues to the present time when the sentence was spoken or written. "Since 1997" accurately reflects this continuous state. Option A, "for," is incorrect because "for" requires a duration, not a starting point. We would need to specify a duration, e.g., "We have been in Sector 8, Gandhinagar for 25 years." Option B, "from," is incorrect because "from" only indicates a starting point. It doesn't convey the continuous nature of the state. It would imply they moved there in 1997 but might have left since then. Option C, "about," is incorrect because it suggests an approximation. The sentence indicates a precise year (1997), making "about" inappropriate.

[#295] Our armed forces are . . . . . . . those of any other country in the world.
Correct Answer

(B) Superior to

Explanation

Solution: The correct answer is Option B: Superior to First, let's define the term " superior ". Superior means higher in rank, status, or quality. The word "superior" is used to make a comparison. When making a comparison using "superior," we use the preposition " to ," not "than," "from," or "of." The correct structure is "superior to." This indicates that our armed forces are of a higher rank or quality compared to those of any other country. Option A: Superior than is incorrect because "superior" is followed by "to," not "than." "Than" is used for comparisons with adjectives like "better," "bigger," or "smaller." For example, "My car is better than yours." Option C: Superior from is grammatically incorrect. "Superior" doesn't take "from" as a preposition in this context. Option D: Superior of is also grammatically incorrect. "Superior" does not take "of" as a preposition when making a comparison of this nature.