This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 13 May 2025, the same 30 questions the app served that day, on the day's vocabulary and editorial. One mark for a right answer, minus 0.25 for a wrong one; the explanation opens as soon as you tap.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Traction
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Sprawling
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Compelled
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Laundering
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Pursuing
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Scrambled
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Provoke
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Insurgency
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
The ability of a wheel or tyre to hold the ground without sliding.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Spreading out over a large area in an untidy or irregular way.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Action or speech that makes someone angry, especially deliberately.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A person who rises in active revolt, typically against an established government or authority.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
Despite looking for her ____, I couldn't find her.
Explanation: The term 'everywhere' refers to looking out for a person or a thing at every place. <br><br> The term can be used as an adverb.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
They are anxious ____ his health?
Explanation: The preposition 'about' is used with 'anxious' to mean being worried about someone or something. In the given sentence the person is worried about her mom's health, hence option C is correct.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
He does not know how to use ____ smartphone.
Explanation: Articles are used before nouns or noun equivalents and are a type of adjective. The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader. The indefinite article (a, an) is used before a noun that is general or when its identity is not known.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
The young heir to his father's huge estate made ducks and drakes of his patrimony.
Explanation: made ducks and drakes: To squander something.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
I sent him about his business as I could stand his insolence no longer.
Explanation: sent him about his business: To dismiss one or send one away, as from employment or from someone's presence, especially rudely or abruptly.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
The mealy-mouthed politician succeeded in influencing the voters.
Explanation: mealy-mouthed: not plain and straightforward; devious.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Choose the Correct Spelling.
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
The amount of foreign direct investment in (a)/ the country in 2008 is (b)/ doubled that received in 1997. (c) / No error (d)
Explanation: double
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
The details of the scheme (a)/ will be made clearly to the public by (b)/ the end of the financial year (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: made clear
Which of phrases given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold type to make the grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is, mark 'd' as the answer.
Government officials have been working overrime to answer queries raised (a)/ by banks on numerous of (b)/ issues pertaining to the loan waiver. (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: ommit 'of'
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Paragraph 1: When you are the chief executive of a public company, the temptation to opt for a merger or acquisition is great indeed. Many such bosses may get a call every week or so from an investment banker eager to offer the kind of deal that is sure to boost profits. Plenty of those calls are proving fruitful. In the first three quarters of 2017, just over $2.5trn-worth of transactions were agreed globally, according to Dealogic, a data provider. The total was virtually unchanged from the same period in 2016, but the number in Europe, the Middle East and Africa was up by 21%.<br><br> Paragraph 2: It is easy to understand why an executive opts for a deal. Buying another business looks like decisive action, and is a lot easier than coming up with a new, bestselling product. Furthermore, being the acquirer is far more appealing than being the prey; better to be the butcher than the cattle. A takeover may keep activist hedge funds off the management's back for a while longer. And being in charge of a much bigger company is a more demanding task that will surely justify a larger salary for the executives in charge. <br><br> Paragraph 3: But these temptations, good and bad, should generally be resisted. S&P Global Market Intelligence, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company's share price. The study looked at M&A deals done by listed companies in America's Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers' shares underperformed the market and those of rival firms in the same industry. <br><br> Paragraph 4: That share-price performance was understandable, in the light of what tended to happen to the fundamentals of the acquiring company's business. The study finds that, relative to the company's peer group, net profit margins fall, as do the returns on capital and on equity; earnings per share grow less quickly; and both debt and interest expenses increase. As the deal is done, however, the executives always sound bullish. Costs will be cut, the companies will benefit from selling a wide range of products and so on; a whole range of 'synergies' will be achieved. Instead, the combined companies tend to suffer from clashes of culture and teething problems as systems prove hard to integrate. The AOL-Time Warner merger of 2000 is perhaps the most famous example of a dysfunctional deal; at the time, it was one of the biggest mergers in corporate history. Not every deal is that bad. But instead of two plus two equaling the promised five, all too often they add up to three-and-a-half.
What is the tone of the author in the passage?
Explanation: The entire passage talks about how acquisitions may not be as great as they appear from a distance. The passage is replete with research. <br> Sarcastic and witty can be eliminated straight away. <br> Vindictive means spiteful/bitter and can be eliminated. <br> Explanatory is the best fit as the passage is not all that positive about acquisitions in general. <br> Hence, option C is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Paragraph 1: When you are the chief executive of a public company, the temptation to opt for a merger or acquisition is great indeed. Many such bosses may get a call every week or so from an investment banker eager to offer the kind of deal that is sure to boost profits. Plenty of those calls are proving fruitful. In the first three quarters of 2017, just over $2.5trn-worth of transactions were agreed globally, according to Dealogic, a data provider. The total was virtually unchanged from the same period in 2016, but the number in Europe, the Middle East and Africa was up by 21%.<br><br> Paragraph 2: It is easy to understand why an executive opts for a deal. Buying another business looks like decisive action, and is a lot easier than coming up with a new, bestselling product. Furthermore, being the acquirer is far more appealing than being the prey; better to be the butcher than the cattle. A takeover may keep activist hedge funds off the management's back for a while longer. And being in charge of a much bigger company is a more demanding task that will surely justify a larger salary for the executives in charge. <br><br> Paragraph 3: But these temptations, good and bad, should generally be resisted. S&P Global Market Intelligence, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company's share price. The study looked at M&A deals done by listed companies in America's Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers' shares underperformed the market and those of rival firms in the same industry. <br><br> Paragraph 4: That share-price performance was understandable, in the light of what tended to happen to the fundamentals of the acquiring company's business. The study finds that, relative to the company's peer group, net profit margins fall, as do the returns on capital and on equity; earnings per share grow less quickly; and both debt and interest expenses increase. As the deal is done, however, the executives always sound bullish. Costs will be cut, the companies will benefit from selling a wide range of products and so on; a whole range of 'synergies' will be achieved. Instead, the combined companies tend to suffer from clashes of culture and teething problems as systems prove hard to integrate. The AOL-Time Warner merger of 2000 is perhaps the most famous example of a dysfunctional deal; at the time, it was one of the biggest mergers in corporate history. Not every deal is that bad. But instead of two plus two equaling the promised five, all too often they add up to three-and-a-half.
Which of the following statements, if true, could be warning signs ahead of a takeover? <br> I. The faster the company was growing before the acquisition, the worse it tends to perform afterwards. <br> II. All-share deals tend to perform less well than cash offers. <br> III. Large deals perform less well than small ones.
Explanation: None of the statements depict a sure shot warning sign of a potential merger failure. <br> Hence, option E is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Paragraph 1: When you are the chief executive of a public company, the temptation to opt for a merger or acquisition is great indeed. Many such bosses may get a call every week or so from an investment banker eager to offer the kind of deal that is sure to boost profits. Plenty of those calls are proving fruitful. In the first three quarters of 2017, just over $2.5trn-worth of transactions were agreed globally, according to Dealogic, a data provider. The total was virtually unchanged from the same period in 2016, but the number in Europe, the Middle East and Africa was up by 21%.<br><br> Paragraph 2: It is easy to understand why an executive opts for a deal. Buying another business looks like decisive action, and is a lot easier than coming up with a new, bestselling product. Furthermore, being the acquirer is far more appealing than being the prey; better to be the butcher than the cattle. A takeover may keep activist hedge funds off the management's back for a while longer. And being in charge of a much bigger company is a more demanding task that will surely justify a larger salary for the executives in charge. <br><br> Paragraph 3: But these temptations, good and bad, should generally be resisted. S&P Global Market Intelligence, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company's share price. The study looked at M&A deals done by listed companies in America's Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers' shares underperformed the market and those of rival firms in the same industry. <br><br> Paragraph 4: That share-price performance was understandable, in the light of what tended to happen to the fundamentals of the acquiring company's business. The study finds that, relative to the company's peer group, net profit margins fall, as do the returns on capital and on equity; earnings per share grow less quickly; and both debt and interest expenses increase. As the deal is done, however, the executives always sound bullish. Costs will be cut, the companies will benefit from selling a wide range of products and so on; a whole range of 'synergies' will be achieved. Instead, the combined companies tend to suffer from clashes of culture and teething problems as systems prove hard to integrate. The AOL-Time Warner merger of 2000 is perhaps the most famous example of a dysfunctional deal; at the time, it was one of the biggest mergers in corporate history. Not every deal is that bad. But instead of two plus two equaling the promised five, all too often they add up to three-and-a-half.
What could be an appropriate title for the passage?
Explanation: As per the passage, the main theme is that Mergers and acquisition have a charming glow about them but the reality is somewhat less lustrous on ground with many underperforming and suffering from weaker fundamentals. Other issues include culture clashes and general adjustment issues. Thus, the enthusiasm shown by the Investment Banks and even executives of the acquiring company is somewhat misplaced. <br> Options B and C are irrelevant. <br> Option D is opposite to what the passage conveys. <br> Option E gives the impression that the passage talks majorly from the perspective of Investment Banks while that is not the case here. <br> Option A is correct. It conveys the main point which is that what may appear to be very lucrative could be very different in reality. <br> Hence, option A is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Paragraph 1: When you are the chief executive of a public company, the temptation to opt for a merger or acquisition is great indeed. Many such bosses may get a call every week or so from an investment banker eager to offer the kind of deal that is sure to boost profits. Plenty of those calls are proving fruitful. In the first three quarters of 2017, just over $2.5trn-worth of transactions were agreed globally, according to Dealogic, a data provider. The total was virtually unchanged from the same period in 2016, but the number in Europe, the Middle East and Africa was up by 21%.<br><br> Paragraph 2: It is easy to understand why an executive opts for a deal. Buying another business looks like decisive action, and is a lot easier than coming up with a new, bestselling product. Furthermore, being the acquirer is far more appealing than being the prey; better to be the butcher than the cattle. A takeover may keep activist hedge funds off the management's back for a while longer. And being in charge of a much bigger company is a more demanding task that will surely justify a larger salary for the executives in charge. <br><br> Paragraph 3: But these temptations, good and bad, should generally be resisted. S&P Global Market Intelligence, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company's share price. The study looked at M&A deals done by listed companies in America's Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers' shares underperformed the market and those of rival firms in the same industry. <br><br> Paragraph 4: That share-price performance was understandable, in the light of what tended to happen to the fundamentals of the acquiring company's business. The study finds that, relative to the company's peer group, net profit margins fall, as do the returns on capital and on equity; earnings per share grow less quickly; and both debt and interest expenses increase. As the deal is done, however, the executives always sound bullish. Costs will be cut, the companies will benefit from selling a wide range of products and so on; a whole range of 'synergies' will be achieved. Instead, the combined companies tend to suffer from clashes of culture and teething problems as systems prove hard to integrate. The AOL-Time Warner merger of 2000 is perhaps the most famous example of a dysfunctional deal; at the time, it was one of the biggest mergers in corporate history. Not every deal is that bad. But instead of two plus two equaling the promised five, all too often they add up to three-and-a-half.
Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage? <br> I. The acquirer firm's share underperforms its own historic performance 7 out of 10 times. <br> II. The newly combined company tends to have culture clashes and teething issues. <br> III. The acquiring company's fundamentals undergo a positive shift immediately after the acquisition.
Explanation: Refer to: <br> '..The acquirers' shares underperformed the market and those of rival firms in the same industry..' <br> This renders statement I incorrect. <br> '..Instead, the combined companies tend to suffer from clashes of culture and teething problems as systems prove hard to integrate..' <br> Statement II is correct. <br> '..That share-price performance was understandable, in the light of what tended to happen to the fundamentals of the acquiring company's business. The study finds that, relative to the company's peer group, net profit margins fall, as do the returns on capital and on equity; earnings per share grow less quickly; and both debt and interest expenses increase"¦' <br> Statement III is false. <br> Hence, option D is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Paragraph 1: When you are the chief executive of a public company, the temptation to opt for a merger or acquisition is great indeed. Many such bosses may get a call every week or so from an investment banker eager to offer the kind of deal that is sure to boost profits. Plenty of those calls are proving fruitful. In the first three quarters of 2017, just over $2.5trn-worth of transactions were agreed globally, according to Dealogic, a data provider. The total was virtually unchanged from the same period in 2016, but the number in Europe, the Middle East and Africa was up by 21%.<br><br> Paragraph 2: It is easy to understand why an executive opts for a deal. Buying another business looks like decisive action, and is a lot easier than coming up with a new, bestselling product. Furthermore, being the acquirer is far more appealing than being the prey; better to be the butcher than the cattle. A takeover may keep activist hedge funds off the management's back for a while longer. And being in charge of a much bigger company is a more demanding task that will surely justify a larger salary for the executives in charge. <br><br> Paragraph 3: But these temptations, good and bad, should generally be resisted. S&P Global Market Intelligence, a research arm of the ratings agency, has updated a study on the impact of deals on the acquiring company's share price. The study looked at M&A deals done by listed companies in America's Russell 3000 index between January 2001 and August 2017; deals were only included if they cost more than 5% of the total enterprise value of the acquirer (5% of the equity value, for financial companies). The acquirers' shares underperformed the market and those of rival firms in the same industry. <br><br> Paragraph 4: That share-price performance was understandable, in the light of what tended to happen to the fundamentals of the acquiring company's business. The study finds that, relative to the company's peer group, net profit margins fall, as do the returns on capital and on equity; earnings per share grow less quickly; and both debt and interest expenses increase. As the deal is done, however, the executives always sound bullish. Costs will be cut, the companies will benefit from selling a wide range of products and so on; a whole range of 'synergies' will be achieved. Instead, the combined companies tend to suffer from clashes of culture and teething problems as systems prove hard to integrate. The AOL-Time Warner merger of 2000 is perhaps the most famous example of a dysfunctional deal; at the time, it was one of the biggest mergers in corporate history. Not every deal is that bad. But instead of two plus two equaling the promised five, all too often they add up to three-and-a-half.
As per the passage, why does it sound tempting to opt for a merger or acquisition? <br> I. This path is much simpler than coming up with a new product that would be a bestseller. <br> II. It is more appealing to be the one doing the acquisition rather than the one being acquired. <br> III. The bigger the company the more returns it guarantees in the long run.
Explanation: Refer to paragraph 3: <br> '..It is easy to understand why an executive opts for a deal. Buying another business looks like decisive action, and is a lot easier than coming up with a new, bestselling product. Furthermore, being the acquirer is far more appealing than being the prey; better to be the butcher than the cattle. A takeover may keep activist hedge funds off the management's back for a while longer. And being in charge of a much bigger company is a more demanding task that will surely justify a larger salary for the executives in charge"¦' <br> Only Statements I and II can be seen here. <br> Statement III is incorrect. <br> Hence, option B is correct.
One Prime for the website and the app, same login. Videos play in the app.
30 questions in 15 minutes, All India rank, streak and explanations. Free: play it here after logging in, or in the app.
Free, and no password to remember.
By continuing you agree to the terms and privacy policy. Prefer the app? Android · iPhone
