English Practice Set Part- 2

A part of the sentence is underlined. You need to find the correct alternative from the provided options which makes the sentence grammatically and logically correct. Mark your answer accordingly

Question 1.

A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer declined to interfere with the 17 August order “of the Allahabad High Court that rejected a plea of a Uttar Pradesh native, seeking” quashing of the FIR lodged against him by the woman.
I-of the Allahabad High Court that rejected a plea of a Uttar Pradesh native, seeking
II- of the Allahabad High Court which had rejected a plea of a Uttar Pradesh native, seeking
III- of the Allahabad High Court which rejected a plea of a Uttar Pradesh native, seeking
IV- of the Allahabad High Court that had rejected a plea of a Uttar Pradesh native, seeking
V- of the Allahabad High Court who had rejected a plea of a Uttar Pradesh native, seeking

Solution: 

II In option V who is not correct as it is talking about the Allahabad High Court and it is especially used for the people. And for the non-restrictive clause which is the right usage i.e. to give the further information which is not restrictive “which” is used. It eliminates option I and IV. When the task is completed before any other one we use past perfect tense as in the sentence A bench of justices declined after the Allahabad High Court had given its verdict. So past perfect is the right choice which eliminates option III. The correct option is II.

Question 2.

Deepening Russia's involvement, its foreign ministry announced on Tuesday that 33 Syrian “opposition groups and political parties had invited to the Russian resort of Sochi” for a "Syrian Congress on National Dialogue" on November 18.
I-opposition groups and political parties had invited to the Russian resort of Sochi
II- opposition groups and political parties invited to the Russian resort of Sochi
III- opposition groups and political parties were invited to the Russian resort of Sochi
IV- opposition groups and political parties were being invited to the Russian resort of Sochi
V- opposition groups and political parties had been invited to the Russian resort of Sochi

Solution: 

V here the sentence is in passive voice because the political parties are invited but by whom, it doesn’t really matter. So when the object becomes important than the subject passive voice is used. It eliminates I, II And III option. When the task is completed before any other one we use past perfect tense as in the sentence announcement is done after the meeting so past perfect passive voice is used which clearly corrects the sentence in option V.

Question 3.

“To the past two or three years, counsellors have noticed” that many students complain that they are not able to recall what they had studied.
I-To the past two or three years, counsellors have noticed
II- Over the past two or three years, counsellors had noticed
III- To the past two or three years, counsellors noticed
IV- Over the past two or three years, counsellors have noticed
V- Over the past two or three years, counsellors noticed

Solution: 

IV over is used to represent the extended periods of time so for using the phrase past two or three years over is the right choice, which eliminates I and III option. For the event which started in past and continues till now, for this present perfect tense is grammatically correct which makes option Iv the right choice.

Question 4.

“Brazil has stepped back from the brink: its currency and its bonds” have rallied strongly after its new centre-left government committed itself to tight fiscal and monetary policies.
I-Brazil has stepped back to the brink: its currency and its
II- Brazil has stepped back over the brink: its currency and its
III- Brazil has stepped back from the brink: its currency and its
IV- Brazil has stepped back from the brink: it’s currency and its
V- Brazil has stepped back to the brink: it’s currency and its

Solution: 

III from is used to tell the situation or place from where it starts and to shows the endpoint. So in the sentence, Brazil has stepped back for referring the point we use the preposition “from” and the use of it’s is wrong which means it is which is irrelevant here so the correct option is III.

Question 5.

In the view of many sceptics, this broad “neo-liberal” agenda has been deliberately “designing to serve the needs of the rich at the expense of the poor.”
I-designing to serve the needs of the rich at the expense of the poor.
II- designed to serve the needs of the rich at the expense of the poor.
III- designing to serve the needs for the rich at the expense of the poor.
IV- designs to serve the needs of the rich at the expense of the poor.
V- designed to serve the needs for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Solution: 

II with has been IIIrd form of the verb is used which clearly eliminates I, III and IV. For is used to refer a reason and of is used to point someone for whom we are talking so of is the correct choice which makes option II the correct choice.

Question 6.

“One of the clearest lesson for international economics in the past few decades”, with many a reminder in the past few years, has been that foreign capital is a mixed blessing.
I- One of the clearest lesson for international economics in the past few decades
II- One of the clearest lessons for international economics in the past few decades
III- One of the clearest lessons to international economics in the past few decades
IV- One of the clearest lesson of international economics in the past few decades
V- One of the clearest lessons at international economics in the past few decades

Solution: 

II plural verb is used with the phrase “one of the” so lessons will be used instead of lesson. For referring the reason “for” is used whereas at species the particular point which cannot be used here so for is the right preposition in the following sentence. Option II is the correct choice.

Question 7.

“As a law is enacted after considerable debate and consultation”, it will be wise to study the experience of its implementation for some time before it is amended, in order to address perceived difficulties.
I-As a law is enacted after considerable debate and consultation
II- Either a law is enacted after considerable debate and consultation
III- When a law is enacted after considerable debate and consultation
IV- Whether a law is enacted after considerable debate and consultation
V- If a law was enacted after considerable debate and consultation

Solution: 

III was cannot be used as the sentence is talking about the fact so option V is incorrect. As is used when both the conditions fall at the same time which is irrelevant here because it is asking to study the experience before the amendment but after the enactment after doing debate and consultation. Use of either and whether is irrelevant. Option III is the right choice

Question 8.

The latest U.S. tax reform promises to lower corporate taxes, rehashing the ancient myth job, the “trickle down” theory, “will not impact the lower middle classes who voted for Mr. Trump”
I- will not impact the lower middle classes who voted for Mr. Trump
II- will not impact the lower middle classes whom voted for Mr. Trump
III- will not impact the lower middle classes who voted to Mr. Trump
IV- will not impact the lower middle classes whom voted for Mr. Trump
V- will not impact the lower middle classes who voted against Mr. Trump

Solution: 

I as against cannot be used because it is for the benefit of lower middle class and benefits for lower middle class is provided when they vote in favour of Trump not against. So V is incorrect. Whom cannot be used which eliminates II and IV. The use of “for” is right which makes the option I correct.