This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 2 November 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.
Fickle
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Brusque
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Earnest
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Zany
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Dapper
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Legerdemain
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Prolegomenon
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Eidetic
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Abrupt or offhand in speech or manner; blunt and unfriendly.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Neat, trim, and stylish in appearance, typically used for a man.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Skillful use of one's hands when performing conjuring tricks; deception or trickery.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Relating to or denoting mental images having unusual vividness and detail, as if actually visible.
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 will be there in ____ hour.
Explanation: 'Hour' makes the sound like the vowel 'o' that is why we use the article 'an'.
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 only I ____ richer.
Explanation: 'Were' is used in the second person singular and plural and first and third person plural. It is used in the subjunctive mood to indicate unreal or hypothetical statements. The words 'if' and 'wish' usually indicate the subjunctive mood.
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.
Only ____ toys have been sold since morning.
Explanation: We use 'a little' with singular uncountable nouns. We use 'a few' with plural countable noun. 'a few' is the right usage as 'toys' are plural countable noun.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Will o' the wisp
Explanation: Will o' the wisp: a person or thing that is difficult or impossible to reach or catch.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To talk one's head off
Explanation: To talk one's head off: to talk endlessly.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To keep one's head
Explanation: To keep one's head : to remain calm and sensible when in an awkward situation that might cause a person to panic or go out of control.
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.
I am waiting (a)/ for my friend (b)/ since this morning (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: I have been waiting
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 colour (a)/ of his eyes (b)/ are brown (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: is brown
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.
All of my experience as a sport reporter indicate (a)/ that the San Feancisco Giants (b)/ cannot possibly lose the pennant (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: indicates
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside it. <br><br> Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation!
What was the purpose behind Supreme Court's order regarding Cauvery water?
Explanation: ... The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. ... <br><br> The passage clearly states that the Supreme Court acknowledges the shortage of water in both states and wanted them to share their problems and mitigate them by sharing river water. <br><br> Hence, option B is correct.
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside it. <br><br> Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation!
According to the passage, the violence in states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is over which issue?
Explanation: ... The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. ... <br><br> Go through the first few sentences of the paragraph, it can be clearly inferred that the violence is over the Cauvery river water. Options A and B can be eliminated as they mention not the actual issue for violence, but what it's turning out to be. <br><br> Hence, option C is correct.
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside it. <br><br> Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation!
According to the passage, who are the drivers of the acts of violence in the two states?
Explanation: ... Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. ... <br><br> It can be easily inferred from the passage that some chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests have perpetuated acts of violence in both states. <br><br> Hence, option A is correct.
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside it. <br><br> Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation!
According to the passage, which of the following entities have contributed in portraying the Cauvery Issue in a way that pits the people of one state against those of the other?
Explanation: ... But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. ... <br><br> The passage clearly states that political parties and some media houses especially the regional television channels have portrayed the issue in a way that pits the people of one state against those of the other. <br><br> Hence, option D is correct.
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside it. <br><br> Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation!
Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?
Explanation: Emotions often trump reason. The Cauvery water dispute is turning out to be less about water and irrigation and more about linguistic chauvinism and regional identity. Nothing else can explain the mindless violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Supreme Court order asking the former to release water to the latter, keeping in view the distress situation in both States in a season of deficit rainfall. Many of the acts of violence have been perpetuated in the two States by chauvinistic, fringe organisations that have little to do with the farming community or its interests. It is clear that there is insufficient water in Karnataka's reservoirs to meet the full irrigation needs of both States. The point of the Supreme Court order was to make the States share their distress and not to magically fulfil the needs of farmers on both sides. But political parties and some media houses, especially regional language television channels, have sought to portray the issue as one that pits the people of one State against that of the other. Indeed, the two major national parties, the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have taken different stands in the two States on this issue. No party or State government appears to believe it can afford to be seen as taking even so much as a conciliatory step toward defusing the crisis. On some previous occasions when Karnataka released water in a distress year the State government did so quietly so as to not give chauvinistic elements any opportunity to inflame passions. Cauvery is an inter-State dispute, but this is no reason to turn the issue into a raging controversy that draws the peoples of the two States into confrontation! <br><br> It can be easily inferred from the passage that all statements except the second one are true. <br><br> Hence, option B is correct.
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.
