This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 30 October 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.
Cogent
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Hefty
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Averse
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Palimpsest
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Susurrus
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Uxorious
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Sybaritic
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Mephitic
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Clear, logical, and convincing; strongly persuasive.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Having a strong dislike or opposition to something.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A manuscript or document that has been written over but still bears traces of earlier writing; something reused or altered but still showing its original form.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Foul-smelling or having a noxious, poisonous odor.
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.
If you are going to the market, you ____ bring me a shawl.
Explanation: The slight difference between 'may' and 'might' is that 'may' implies strong certainty about hypothetical events and 'might' expresses a lesser degree of certainty. 'Might' is a stronger word choice than 'may' when describing past hypotheticals.
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.
____ we do exercise, we will remain healthy.
Explanation: Solution: 'if' is used in conditional sentences to introduce the circumstances in which an event or situation might happen, might be happening, or might have happened. <br> Example: She gets very upset if I exclude her. <br> You'll feel a lot better about yourself if you work on solutions to your upsetting situations.
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.
We use chemical fertilizer ____ soften the soil.
Explanation: 'To soften' is the correct phrase and therefore 'to' is the preposition used.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Harp on
Explanation: Harp on: to keep talking or complaining about someone or something.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To be at daggers drawn
Explanation: To be at daggers drawn : in a state of extreme unfriendliness.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To get into hot waters
Explanation: To get into hot waters: to be in or get into a difficult situation.
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.
Such books (a)/ which you read (b)/ are not worth reading (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: The books
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.
Tagore was (a)/ one of the greatest poet (b)/ that ever lived (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: poets
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.
You may please (a)/ apply for an advance of salary (b)/ to cover costs of transport (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: advance salary
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions given below it in the context of the passage. <br><br> The recent Ratan Tata-Cyrus Mistry imbroglio brings into sharp focus the role and position of independent directors. Under Section 149 of the Companies Act, at least one-third of the directors of a listed company must be independent. That means that the person so appointed must not be a promoter of the company or its holding subsidiary or associate company nor should he/she be related to the promoters of the company. In addition, neither the individual nor his/her relatives should have a pecuniary relationship with the company. They are also, under Section 149(6), to be persons of integrity and possessing the relevant skills and experience. <br><br> Independent directors, though they may in the initial stage be invited by the controlling shareholders of a company or its incumbent managing director, are appointed by the shareholders at a General Meeting; they are so appointed to safeguard not only the best interests of all shareholders but also of all stakeholders. <br><br> Prior to the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, the independent director had only civil liability. And to a great extent he/she was part of a 'hail fellow' network where controlling shareholders invited their friends to sit on their boards confident of their support. In many other instances, retiring senior executives eagerly sought seats on the board as a way to supplement their pension. They were often grateful for being given a berth and remained loyal to the management that invited them. The only time I can recall when there was consternation, fear, outrage and indignation was when an arrest warrant was issued on Nimesh Kampani in 2009 as he was an independent director in Nagarjuna Finance. The company had defaulted on repaying deposits. Many felt this was unfair as an independent director had no executive duty and should not be held responsible. <br><br> Section 149(12) provides that an independent director shall be liable only in respect of omission or commission by a company that had occurred with his/her knowledge, attributable through board processes, and with his consent or connivance, or where he had not acted diligently. I am uncertain whether independent directors appreciate this, but this provision is all-encompassing as it suggests that if a company has made a decision which is not in its better interest (taking into account all stakeholders) at a board meeting and the independent director was aware or party to the decision, he is liable both in civil and criminal terms. Many senior proponents of the law have opined that this means that even if the director has not attended a meeting but the item was mentioned on the agenda and the independent director had not objected to it, he/she would be liable. Furthermore, if the independent director attends a meeting where the matter is discussed and he/she keeps quiet even though not in agreement, he/she could be held both criminally and civilly liable. The independent director, if he/she is not in agreement with a proposal, must, if he/she wants to be in the clear, state his/her disagreement and have it recorded in the minutes. <br><br> In many companies which are majority-owned by a family or a few individuals, the persons controlling the company tend to treat it as their own fiefdom and utilise company funds and resources for personal enjoyment. Company planes (which the company may not need) are used for trips to resorts abroad to hold a board meeting. Paintings by reputed artists purchased at astronomical prices adorn private homes. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense. The independent director in many cases may not be aware or be a party to this. However, can it be said in these cases that the independent director acted diligently and as was expected of him/her? Shouldn't the independent director question and seek answers? <br><br> United Breweries was a very profitable company till it floated Kingfisher Airlines. Did the independent directors act diligently while approving this disastrous foray? Indian corporate lore is littered with many such examples. How is it that fingers are not being pointed at independent directors? <br><br> I believe the time has now come for independent directors to demonstrate, if they are to do what is expected of them and to avoid liability, that they will take care and be diligent and not be mere rubber stamps. In addition, no one must be an independent director if he/she has the slightest concern about the bona fides of the controlling shareholders. If one still does, it is at one's own peril.
Which of the following statements with respect to independent directors of a listed company cannot be inferred from the passage?
Explanation: Reference<br> 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence<br> "¦ That means that the person so appointed must not be a promoter of the company or its holding subsidiary or associate company nor should he/she be related to the promoters of the company. In addition, neither the individual nor his/her relatives should have a pecuniary relationship with the company. "¦<br> The underlined parts in the sentence taken as reference clearly validate what is stated in the statements given as option A and B. The statement C, however, is not mentioned in the passage. <br> Option C is hence the correct answer.
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions given below it in the context of the passage. <br><br> The recent Ratan Tata-Cyrus Mistry imbroglio brings into sharp focus the role and position of independent directors. Under Section 149 of the Companies Act, at least one-third of the directors of a listed company must be independent. That means that the person so appointed must not be a promoter of the company or its holding subsidiary or associate company nor should he/she be related to the promoters of the company. In addition, neither the individual nor his/her relatives should have a pecuniary relationship with the company. They are also, under Section 149(6), to be persons of integrity and possessing the relevant skills and experience. <br><br> Independent directors, though they may in the initial stage be invited by the controlling shareholders of a company or its incumbent managing director, are appointed by the shareholders at a General Meeting; they are so appointed to safeguard not only the best interests of all shareholders but also of all stakeholders. <br><br> Prior to the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, the independent director had only civil liability. And to a great extent he/she was part of a 'hail fellow' network where controlling shareholders invited their friends to sit on their boards confident of their support. In many other instances, retiring senior executives eagerly sought seats on the board as a way to supplement their pension. They were often grateful for being given a berth and remained loyal to the management that invited them. The only time I can recall when there was consternation, fear, outrage and indignation was when an arrest warrant was issued on Nimesh Kampani in 2009 as he was an independent director in Nagarjuna Finance. The company had defaulted on repaying deposits. Many felt this was unfair as an independent director had no executive duty and should not be held responsible. <br><br> Section 149(12) provides that an independent director shall be liable only in respect of omission or commission by a company that had occurred with his/her knowledge, attributable through board processes, and with his consent or connivance, or where he had not acted diligently. I am uncertain whether independent directors appreciate this, but this provision is all-encompassing as it suggests that if a company has made a decision which is not in its better interest (taking into account all stakeholders) at a board meeting and the independent director was aware or party to the decision, he is liable both in civil and criminal terms. Many senior proponents of the law have opined that this means that even if the director has not attended a meeting but the item was mentioned on the agenda and the independent director had not objected to it, he/she would be liable. Furthermore, if the independent director attends a meeting where the matter is discussed and he/she keeps quiet even though not in agreement, he/she could be held both criminally and civilly liable. The independent director, if he/she is not in agreement with a proposal, must, if he/she wants to be in the clear, state his/her disagreement and have it recorded in the minutes. <br><br> In many companies which are majority-owned by a family or a few individuals, the persons controlling the company tend to treat it as their own fiefdom and utilise company funds and resources for personal enjoyment. Company planes (which the company may not need) are used for trips to resorts abroad to hold a board meeting. Paintings by reputed artists purchased at astronomical prices adorn private homes. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense. The independent director in many cases may not be aware or be a party to this. However, can it be said in these cases that the independent director acted diligently and as was expected of him/her? Shouldn't the independent director question and seek answers? <br><br> United Breweries was a very profitable company till it floated Kingfisher Airlines. Did the independent directors act diligently while approving this disastrous foray? Indian corporate lore is littered with many such examples. How is it that fingers are not being pointed at independent directors? <br><br> I believe the time has now come for independent directors to demonstrate, if they are to do what is expected of them and to avoid liability, that they will take care and be diligent and not be mere rubber stamps. In addition, no one must be an independent director if he/she has the slightest concern about the bona fides of the controlling shareholders. If one still does, it is at one's own peril.
What according the passage is the prime expectation of the writer from an independent director of a company?
Explanation: Reference<br> Last paragraph, 1st sentence<br> I believe the time has now come for independent directors to demonstrate, if they are to do what is expected of them and to avoid liability, that they will take care and be diligent and not be mere rubber stamps. <br> Both the words -'diligent' and 'conscientious' are synonyms. If someone is diligent or conscientious, that person strives to do what's right and to carry out his duties. These people show care and put in a big effort. <br> Clearly, only the statement given as option B can be inferred here from the passage. <br> Option B is hence the correct answer.
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions given below it in the context of the passage. <br><br> The recent Ratan Tata-Cyrus Mistry imbroglio brings into sharp focus the role and position of independent directors. Under Section 149 of the Companies Act, at least one-third of the directors of a listed company must be independent. That means that the person so appointed must not be a promoter of the company or its holding subsidiary or associate company nor should he/she be related to the promoters of the company. In addition, neither the individual nor his/her relatives should have a pecuniary relationship with the company. They are also, under Section 149(6), to be persons of integrity and possessing the relevant skills and experience. <br><br> Independent directors, though they may in the initial stage be invited by the controlling shareholders of a company or its incumbent managing director, are appointed by the shareholders at a General Meeting; they are so appointed to safeguard not only the best interests of all shareholders but also of all stakeholders. <br><br> Prior to the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, the independent director had only civil liability. And to a great extent he/she was part of a 'hail fellow' network where controlling shareholders invited their friends to sit on their boards confident of their support. In many other instances, retiring senior executives eagerly sought seats on the board as a way to supplement their pension. They were often grateful for being given a berth and remained loyal to the management that invited them. The only time I can recall when there was consternation, fear, outrage and indignation was when an arrest warrant was issued on Nimesh Kampani in 2009 as he was an independent director in Nagarjuna Finance. The company had defaulted on repaying deposits. Many felt this was unfair as an independent director had no executive duty and should not be held responsible. <br><br> Section 149(12) provides that an independent director shall be liable only in respect of omission or commission by a company that had occurred with his/her knowledge, attributable through board processes, and with his consent or connivance, or where he had not acted diligently. I am uncertain whether independent directors appreciate this, but this provision is all-encompassing as it suggests that if a company has made a decision which is not in its better interest (taking into account all stakeholders) at a board meeting and the independent director was aware or party to the decision, he is liable both in civil and criminal terms. Many senior proponents of the law have opined that this means that even if the director has not attended a meeting but the item was mentioned on the agenda and the independent director had not objected to it, he/she would be liable. Furthermore, if the independent director attends a meeting where the matter is discussed and he/she keeps quiet even though not in agreement, he/she could be held both criminally and civilly liable. The independent director, if he/she is not in agreement with a proposal, must, if he/she wants to be in the clear, state his/her disagreement and have it recorded in the minutes. <br><br> In many companies which are majority-owned by a family or a few individuals, the persons controlling the company tend to treat it as their own fiefdom and utilise company funds and resources for personal enjoyment. Company planes (which the company may not need) are used for trips to resorts abroad to hold a board meeting. Paintings by reputed artists purchased at astronomical prices adorn private homes. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense. The independent director in many cases may not be aware or be a party to this. However, can it be said in these cases that the independent director acted diligently and as was expected of him/her? Shouldn't the independent director question and seek answers? <br><br> United Breweries was a very profitable company till it floated Kingfisher Airlines. Did the independent directors act diligently while approving this disastrous foray? Indian corporate lore is littered with many such examples. How is it that fingers are not being pointed at independent directors? <br><br> I believe the time has now come for independent directors to demonstrate, if they are to do what is expected of them and to avoid liability, that they will take care and be diligent and not be mere rubber stamps. In addition, no one must be an independent director if he/she has the slightest concern about the bona fides of the controlling shareholders. If one still does, it is at one's own peril.
In what circumstances according to the passage an independent director cannot be held accountable with respect to a company's affairs at board level? <br> I. If an independent director remains absent during a board meeting discussion that further leads to a decision. <br> II. If an independent director keeps quiet over a decision taken by the other board members. <br> III. If an independent director clearly states his or her disagreement over a decision and have it in recorded form.
Explanation: Reference<br> 4th paragraph, last sentence<br> "¦ The independent director, if he/she is not in agreement with a proposal, must, if he/she wants to be in the clear, state his/her disagreement and have it recorded in the minutes. <br> The sentence above taken as reference clearly supports what is stated in the statement III whereas the other statements affirm the circumstances an independent director is held liable or accountable in. <br> Clearly, option C is the correct answer.
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions given below it in the context of the passage. <br><br> The recent Ratan Tata-Cyrus Mistry imbroglio brings into sharp focus the role and position of independent directors. Under Section 149 of the Companies Act, at least one-third of the directors of a listed company must be independent. That means that the person so appointed must not be a promoter of the company or its holding subsidiary or associate company nor should he/she be related to the promoters of the company. In addition, neither the individual nor his/her relatives should have a pecuniary relationship with the company. They are also, under Section 149(6), to be persons of integrity and possessing the relevant skills and experience. <br><br> Independent directors, though they may in the initial stage be invited by the controlling shareholders of a company or its incumbent managing director, are appointed by the shareholders at a General Meeting; they are so appointed to safeguard not only the best interests of all shareholders but also of all stakeholders. <br><br> Prior to the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, the independent director had only civil liability. And to a great extent he/she was part of a 'hail fellow' network where controlling shareholders invited their friends to sit on their boards confident of their support. In many other instances, retiring senior executives eagerly sought seats on the board as a way to supplement their pension. They were often grateful for being given a berth and remained loyal to the management that invited them. The only time I can recall when there was consternation, fear, outrage and indignation was when an arrest warrant was issued on Nimesh Kampani in 2009 as he was an independent director in Nagarjuna Finance. The company had defaulted on repaying deposits. Many felt this was unfair as an independent director had no executive duty and should not be held responsible. <br><br> Section 149(12) provides that an independent director shall be liable only in respect of omission or commission by a company that had occurred with his/her knowledge, attributable through board processes, and with his consent or connivance, or where he had not acted diligently. I am uncertain whether independent directors appreciate this, but this provision is all-encompassing as it suggests that if a company has made a decision which is not in its better interest (taking into account all stakeholders) at a board meeting and the independent director was aware or party to the decision, he is liable both in civil and criminal terms. Many senior proponents of the law have opined that this means that even if the director has not attended a meeting but the item was mentioned on the agenda and the independent director had not objected to it, he/she would be liable. Furthermore, if the independent director attends a meeting where the matter is discussed and he/she keeps quiet even though not in agreement, he/she could be held both criminally and civilly liable. The independent director, if he/she is not in agreement with a proposal, must, if he/she wants to be in the clear, state his/her disagreement and have it recorded in the minutes. <br><br> In many companies which are majority-owned by a family or a few individuals, the persons controlling the company tend to treat it as their own fiefdom and utilise company funds and resources for personal enjoyment. Company planes (which the company may not need) are used for trips to resorts abroad to hold a board meeting. Paintings by reputed artists purchased at astronomical prices adorn private homes. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense. The independent director in many cases may not be aware or be a party to this. However, can it be said in these cases that the independent director acted diligently and as was expected of him/her? Shouldn't the independent director question and seek answers? <br><br> United Breweries was a very profitable company till it floated Kingfisher Airlines. Did the independent directors act diligently while approving this disastrous foray? Indian corporate lore is littered with many such examples. How is it that fingers are not being pointed at independent directors? <br><br> I believe the time has now come for independent directors to demonstrate, if they are to do what is expected of them and to avoid liability, that they will take care and be diligent and not be mere rubber stamps. In addition, no one must be an independent director if he/she has the slightest concern about the bona fides of the controlling shareholders. If one still does, it is at one's own peril.
What does the phrase 'hail fellow' imply in the context of passage?
Explanation: 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence<br> "¦ And to a great extent he/she was part of a 'hail fellow' network where controlling shareholders invited their friends to sit on their boards confident of their support. "¦<br> 'Hail fellow well met' is a somewhat archaic English idiom used when referring to a person whose behavior is hearty, friendly, and congenial and the sentence taken above as reference evidently supports what is stated in the statement given as option D. <br> Option D is hence the correct answer.
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions given below it in the context of the passage. <br><br> The recent Ratan Tata-Cyrus Mistry imbroglio brings into sharp focus the role and position of independent directors. Under Section 149 of the Companies Act, at least one-third of the directors of a listed company must be independent. That means that the person so appointed must not be a promoter of the company or its holding subsidiary or associate company nor should he/she be related to the promoters of the company. In addition, neither the individual nor his/her relatives should have a pecuniary relationship with the company. They are also, under Section 149(6), to be persons of integrity and possessing the relevant skills and experience. <br><br> Independent directors, though they may in the initial stage be invited by the controlling shareholders of a company or its incumbent managing director, are appointed by the shareholders at a General Meeting; they are so appointed to safeguard not only the best interests of all shareholders but also of all stakeholders. <br><br> Prior to the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, the independent director had only civil liability. And to a great extent he/she was part of a 'hail fellow' network where controlling shareholders invited their friends to sit on their boards confident of their support. In many other instances, retiring senior executives eagerly sought seats on the board as a way to supplement their pension. They were often grateful for being given a berth and remained loyal to the management that invited them. The only time I can recall when there was consternation, fear, outrage and indignation was when an arrest warrant was issued on Nimesh Kampani in 2009 as he was an independent director in Nagarjuna Finance. The company had defaulted on repaying deposits. Many felt this was unfair as an independent director had no executive duty and should not be held responsible. <br><br> Section 149(12) provides that an independent director shall be liable only in respect of omission or commission by a company that had occurred with his/her knowledge, attributable through board processes, and with his consent or connivance, or where he had not acted diligently. I am uncertain whether independent directors appreciate this, but this provision is all-encompassing as it suggests that if a company has made a decision which is not in its better interest (taking into account all stakeholders) at a board meeting and the independent director was aware or party to the decision, he is liable both in civil and criminal terms. Many senior proponents of the law have opined that this means that even if the director has not attended a meeting but the item was mentioned on the agenda and the independent director had not objected to it, he/she would be liable. Furthermore, if the independent director attends a meeting where the matter is discussed and he/she keeps quiet even though not in agreement, he/she could be held both criminally and civilly liable. The independent director, if he/she is not in agreement with a proposal, must, if he/she wants to be in the clear, state his/her disagreement and have it recorded in the minutes. <br><br> In many companies which are majority-owned by a family or a few individuals, the persons controlling the company tend to treat it as their own fiefdom and utilise company funds and resources for personal enjoyment. Company planes (which the company may not need) are used for trips to resorts abroad to hold a board meeting. Paintings by reputed artists purchased at astronomical prices adorn private homes. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense. The independent director in many cases may not be aware or be a party to this. However, can it be said in these cases that the independent director acted diligently and as was expected of him/her? Shouldn't the independent director question and seek answers? <br><br> United Breweries was a very profitable company till it floated Kingfisher Airlines. Did the independent directors act diligently while approving this disastrous foray? Indian corporate lore is littered with many such examples. How is it that fingers are not being pointed at independent directors? <br><br> I believe the time has now come for independent directors to demonstrate, if they are to do what is expected of them and to avoid liability, that they will take care and be diligent and not be mere rubber stamps. In addition, no one must be an independent director if he/she has the slightest concern about the bona fides of the controlling shareholders. If one still does, it is at one's own peril.
What examples did the writer quote to unveil how, in many a case, the persons controlling a companywhich is owned by a family or a few individuals, tend to spend funds on futilities? <br> I. Company planes are unnecessarily used for trips to resorts abroad to conduct a board meeting. <br> II. Painting by reputed artists are purchased at astronomical prices. <br> III. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense.
Explanation: Reference<br> 5th paragraph, 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences<br> ... Company planes (which the company may not need) are used for trips to resorts abroad to hold a board meeting. Paintings by reputed artists purchased at astronomical prices adorn private homes. Homes are lavishly decorated at company expense. "¦<br> The sentences above taken as references clearly validate all the above three statements. <br> Option D is hence the correct answer.
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.
