This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 12 June 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.
Plunged
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Isolated
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Exploring
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Convicted
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Massive
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Praise
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Reciprocate
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Aligning
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Jump or dive quickly and energetically.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Able to be considered the result of the cause indicated.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Express warm approval or admiration of.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To get or fall into line.
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.
'To arrive' means ____
Explanation: to arrive --- reach a place at the end of a journey or a stage in a journey.
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.
Next week, she is going to Surat with a view to ____ a seminar.
Explanation: The phrase 'with a view to' is always followed by a 'gerund (verb + ing).' <br> Step 1: Understand the Meaning of 'With a View To'<br> - The phrase 'with a view to' means 'with the intention of' or 'for the purpose of.' <br> - It must be followed by a 'gerund (verb + ing)' rather than an infinitive or base verb. <br> Step 2: Analyze the Given Options<br> - Option A: 'will attend' (Incorrect - 'will attend' is in the future tense, but 'with a view to' requires a gerund.) <br> - Option B: 'attend' (Incorrect - 'attend' is in the base form, which is not correct after 'with a view to.') <br> - Option C: 'attends' (Incorrect - 'attends' is in the simple present tense, which does not fit the sentence structure.) <br> - Option D: 'attending' (Correct - 'attending' is a gerund, which is the correct form after 'with a view to.') <br> Conclusion: The correct answer is 'attending' because 'with a view to' must be followed by a 'gerund (verb + ing).'
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.
Listen, someone ____ a song.
Explanation: Listen, someone is singing a song.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Do not add fuel to the fire.
Explanation: Add fuel to the fire: cause a situation or conflict to become more intense.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Kamal was left high and dry by his friends when he lost all his money.
Explanation: high and dry: without resources or help.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
His hard-earned money has gone down the drain.
Explanation: gone down the drain: To fail; to be ruined or destroyed.
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.
Not only did he fail to profit from (a)/ his stock transactions, (b)/ but he lost all that he had invested (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: but he also lost
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.
If you ever visit Paris, (a)/ you would sense for yourself (b)/ the grace and charm of an old-world city that is forever new. (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: you will sense
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.
I think we should treat them with a mixture of respect and irreverence, (a)/ respect for their learning and experience, (b)/ erreverence for any alleged infallibility. (c)/ No error (d)
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br> The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a 'second chance' to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy. The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to 'change his legacy' by submitting additional documents at the 'claims and objections' stage. The court asked whether this would amount to 're-doing the claims' of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30. <br><br> A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to 'tinkering with the family tree' and redoing the verification process. <br> <br> 'You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant's siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?', Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. <br><br> Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. 'Are you not contradicting yourself here?' Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal. <br><br> The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing. <br><br> Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28. <br><br> 'Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,' Justice Nariman observed. <br><br> Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving 'another chance to people who risk losing all their rights'. <br><br> To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with 'human problems of a huge magnitude'. <br><br> 'Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?' Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation. <br><br> To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of 'trading of legacies or meeting of minds'. 'Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,' he said. <br><br> The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.
Which among the following is true regarding the new move of the Government regarding the National Register of Citizens in Assam?
Explanation: Refer to, 'The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to 'change his legacy' by submitting additional documents at the 'claims and objections' stage.' <br> It implies the fact that the government is ready to accept fresh documents regarding the legacy of a person if the same have not been produced in the first round of verification. Among the given options, Only D implies the same whereas all others are completely out of context as there is no reference to any of them in the passage. <br> It makes option D the correct choice among the given options.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br> The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a 'second chance' to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy. The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to 'change his legacy' by submitting additional documents at the 'claims and objections' stage. The court asked whether this would amount to 're-doing the claims' of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30. <br><br> A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to 'tinkering with the family tree' and redoing the verification process. <br> <br> 'You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant's siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?', Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. <br><br> Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. 'Are you not contradicting yourself here?' Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal. <br><br> The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing. <br><br> Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28. <br><br> 'Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,' Justice Nariman observed. <br><br> Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving 'another chance to people who risk losing all their rights'. <br><br> To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with 'human problems of a huge magnitude'. <br><br> 'Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?' Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation. <br><br> To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of 'trading of legacies or meeting of minds'. 'Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,' he said. <br><br> The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.
Which among the following is true regarding the view of the Supreme Court regarding the Standard Operating Procedure announced by the government?
Explanation: Refer to, 'The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a 'second chance' to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy.' <br> In the above lines it is very clear that the Supreme Court has questioned the Union Government regarding its move to give second chance to the citizens to be included in the National Register of Citizens. The whole passage talks about the displeasure of the Supreme Court regarding the new move by the government. <br> Among the given options, A is completely out of context since nothing of that sort has been referred to in the passage whereas B is irrelevant since it is also not there in the passage. C is also not correct as there is no reference in the passage regarding the SC giving directions to the High Court to take action in the matter. Option D implies the reaction of the apex court in the rightful manner. <br> This makes option D the correct choice among the given options.
The Given Editorial is accompanied by a set of questions based on the information given in it. Answer the following questions according to what is stated or implied in the EditoriaaDirection: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br> The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a 'second chance' to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy. The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to 'change his legacy' by submitting additional documents at the 'claims and objections' stage. The court asked whether this would amount to 're-doing the claims' of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30. <br><br> A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to 'tinkering with the family tree' and redoing the verification process. <br> <br> 'You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant's siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?', Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. <br><br> Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. 'Are you not contradicting yourself here?' Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal. <br><br> The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing. <br><br> Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28. <br><br> 'Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,' Justice Nariman observed. <br><br> Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving 'another chance to people who risk losing all their rights'. <br><br> To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with 'human problems of a huge magnitude'. <br><br> 'Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?' Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation. <br><br> To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of 'trading of legacies or meeting of minds'. 'Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,' he said. <br><br> The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.l.
Which among the following substantiates the observation of the Supreme Court that the government is contradicting its own stand in the issue of National Register of Citizens?
Explanation: Refer to, 'Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. 'Are you not contradicting yourself here?' Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal.' <br> It is very clear that the Supreme Court made scathing observations regarding the new move by the government regarding the new Standard Operating Procedure of accepting legacy documents in the claims filing stage. <br> Among the given options, all are out of context since none of the options has been referred to in the passage except Option C which implies the reason of the observation made by the Supreme Court regarding the new step by the government. <br> Hence, it makes option C the correct choice among the given options.
The Given Editorial is accompanied by a set of questions based on the information given in it. Answer the following questions according to what is stated or implied in the EditoriaaDirection: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br> The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a 'second chance' to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy. The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to 'change his legacy' by submitting additional documents at the 'claims and objections' stage. The court asked whether this would amount to 're-doing the claims' of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30. <br><br> A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to 'tinkering with the family tree' and redoing the verification process. <br> <br> 'You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant's siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?', Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. <br><br> Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. 'Are you not contradicting yourself here?' Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal. <br><br> The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing. <br><br> Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28. <br><br> 'Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,' Justice Nariman observed. <br><br> Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving 'another chance to people who risk losing all their rights'. <br><br> To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with 'human problems of a huge magnitude'. <br><br> 'Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?' Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation. <br><br> To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of 'trading of legacies or meeting of minds'. 'Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,' he said. <br><br> The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.l.
Which among the following is a possible consequence of the new standard operating procedure adopted by the Government regarding the National Register of Citizens?
Explanation: Refer to, 'To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of 'trading of legacies or meeting of minds'. 'Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,' he said.' <br> According to the person responsible for the whole exercise in Assam, this new SOP will open the can of worms and there will be widespread corruption in the whole exercise. The citizens will file forged documents and they will try to manipulate the legacies from the actual ones thereby the making the whole exercise futile. <br> Among the given options, all are out of context alternatives except for option D and E. Now for option E, it is true that the government may have to redo the whole exercise but nowhere in the passage it is mentioned that it will incur double expenses and double manpower and hence, this part is not correct according to the passage. <br> This makes option D the correct choice among the given options.
The Given Editorial is accompanied by a set of questions based on the information given in it. Answer the following questions according to what is stated or implied in theav EditaThe Given Editorial is accompanied by a set of questions based on the information given in it. Answer the following questions according to what is stated or implied in the EditoriaaDirection: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br> The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it is giving the over 40 lakh people, excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, a 'second chance' to gain citizenship by allowing them to produce fresh documents to prove their Indian legacy. The court was referring to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) proposed by the government, which allows a claimant for Indian citizenship to 'change his legacy' by submitting additional documents at the 'claims and objections' stage. The court asked whether this would amount to 're-doing the claims' of those left out from the draft NRC published on July 30. <br><br> A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman on Tuesday said allowing a claimant to change his legacy would amount to 'tinkering with the family tree' and redoing the verification process. <br> <br> 'You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant's siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?', Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal. <br><br> Besides, the Bench pointed out, the government, in the beginning, had specified that documents on legacy would be allowed to be filed only once. Now, it has changed tack to permit additional documents to be filed. 'Are you not contradicting yourself here?' Justice Gogoi asked Mr. Venugopal. <br><br> The court directed Assam State NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the government's proposal to submit fresh documents. Mr. Hajela has to file his report before September 5, the next date of hearing. <br><br> Meanwhile, the court deferred the receipt of claims and objections to a later date. This stage was supposed to start within the next days, on August 30, and would have continued till October 28. <br><br> 'Allowing a person to suddenly pull out an additional document, that too at the 'claims and objections' stage, will upset the apple cart,' Justice Nariman observed. <br><br> Mr. Venugopal countered that the government is giving 'another chance to people who risk losing all their rights'. <br><br> To this, Justice Nariman agreed that the court was dealing with 'human problems of a huge magnitude'. <br><br> 'Consequences are so severe that should they be given one more chance. Suppose a claimant has misfired once but can deliver in the next. Why should such a person not be given another chance?' Justice Nariman asked Mr. Hajela, stakeholders and petitioners in the litigation. <br><br> To this, Mr. Hajela said reopening of family trees would risk the possibility of 'trading of legacies or meeting of minds'. 'Giving a second chance would only open trading in legacies. There may be people who are willing to sell the legacies to others,' he said. <br><br> The Supreme Court further asked Mr. Hajela to submit a report with a time-frame to carry out the sample re-verification of at least 10 per cent of the names included in the final draft NRC. This is after Mr. Hajela placed before the Bench a district-wise data of the percentage of the population who have been excluded from the final draft NRC.l.orial.
Why has the Supreme Court observed that the new move by the government will actually make the government redo the whole exercise?
Explanation: Refer to, ''You see, a claimant submits documents to prove his legacy from his father. A family tree is drawn, which includes the claimant's siblings, etc. The authorities verify his claim with each one of the member in the family tree before deciding his claim [for citizenship]. Now, your SOP says that a person can submit fresh documents claiming to prove his legacy from his grandfather. Now, the family tree has to be recreated. Everything has to be re-verified. This amounts to redoing the entire exercise. Why?', Justice Gogoi asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.' <br> From the above lines it is very clear that the Supreme Court did not understand the logic behind asking the citizens who were left out to submit the fresh documents at the claims and objections stage. It is like redoing the whole thing from the scratch without any issue. <br> Among the given options, only C implies the same as in the passage and all the other options can be easily eliminated since they are out of the given context of the passage. There is no reference to all such options in the passage. <br> It makes option C the correct choice among the given options.
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. Mobile number + OTP, no password.
