This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 20 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.
Contend
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Allay
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Warrant
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Decry
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Garner
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Abdicate
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Espouse
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Plaudit
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To reduce or calm a strong feeling such as fear, worry or suspicion.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To gather, collect, or gain something, especially support, information, or praise.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To give up a position of power or responsibility, especially a king or leader giving up the throne.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To correct something that is wrong or defective; to put right.
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.
Sugarcane ____ usually two three meter long?
Explanation: Sugarcane refers to the plant in general, not individual stalks. <br> Think of it like this: ‘Rice is grown in many countries.’ We're talking about rice as a crop, not individual grains. <br> Therefore, we need a singular verb. <br> * ‘are’ and ‘were’ are plural verbs. They'd be used if we were talking about multiple sugarcanes (which isn't the common way we describe sugarcane). <br> * ‘was’ is singular, but it's in the past tense. The sentence is generally describing sugarcane, so we use the present tense. <br> ‘is’ is a singular, present tense verb. <br> So, the complete sentence is: ‘Sugarcane is usually two three meter long.’
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 decided to do all the task ____ instead of waiting for help?
Explanation: The reflexive pronoun of 'we' is 'ourselves'. Hence option B is the correct answer.
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.
Our friends, ____ we invited to party, arrived rather early.
Explanation: 'Who' functions as a subject, while 'whom' functions as an object. Use 'who' when the word is performing the action. Use 'whom' when it is receiving the action.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To tempt providence
Explanation: To tempt providence: take a silly risk.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To haul over the coals
Explanation: To haul over the coals: To scold, reprimand, or reprove someone severely for an error or mistake.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To lose face
Explanation: To lose face: be humiliated or come to be less highly respected.
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.
None of the above
Explanation: the dean and me
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.
Fortunately for us, at the time of the accident (a)/ he was driving someone else's car, (b)/ not our's (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: not ours
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.
We were only half way through the discussion (a)/ when somebody voiced their opinion that (b)/ long and dignified masculine tradition demanded concealing all sentiments (c)/ No error (d)
Explanation: voiced his opinion
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Homebuyers parted of their money by real estate developers have some relief coming their way. The Union Cabinet has cleared an ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a law which came into force in November 2016 to hasten the process of winding up failed businesses. While the government refused to divulge specific details of the amendment, the change to the law is expected to help offer better treatment to homebuyers when it comes to recovering their dues from bankrupt companies. <br><br> A 14-member panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended last month that homebuyers should be treated as financial creditors during the bankruptcy resolution process. It is yet to be known whether homebuyers will be treated better or worse than banks and other financial lenders under the amended law. But there is a sound reason to treat them a step above these traditional lenders. Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns. Homebuyers simply want the delivery of a good that was promised to them. It is thus unfair to push homebuyers, who did not choose to risk their money on an uncertain venture in the first place, down the pecking order when it comes to sharing the spoils of a bankrupt entity. <br><br> Until now, homebuyers have had to knock on the doors of the courts to uphold their rights, while other stakeholders benefited significantly at their cost. The travails of several homebuyers in the Jaypee insolvency case, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene in favour of homebuyers in the bankruptcy resolution process, is a case in point. The amendment, if it meets expectations, could also reduce the inconsistencies between the IBC and the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA). While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, buyers have been treated as unsecured creditors. The removal of this inconsistency can help courts deliver better justice to homebuyers in the future.
As per the passage, why should homebuyers be given more priority than lenders? <br> I. Homebuyers are not creditors. <br> II. Homebuyers are not customers. <br> III. Homebuyers only want the delivery of promised goods.
Explanation: Refer to: ‘But there is a sound reason to treat them a step above these traditional lenders. <br> Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. <br> Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns. Homebuyers simply want the delivery of a good that was promised to them.’ <br> As per the fragments highlighted, I and III are correct while II is the opposite of what has been stated in the passage. <br> Hence, option E is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Homebuyers parted of their money by real estate developers have some relief coming their way. The Union Cabinet has cleared an ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a law which came into force in November 2016 to hasten the process of winding up failed businesses. While the government refused to divulge specific details of the amendment, the change to the law is expected to help offer better treatment to homebuyers when it comes to recovering their dues from bankrupt companies. <br><br> A 14-member panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended last month that homebuyers should be treated as financial creditors during the bankruptcy resolution process. It is yet to be known whether homebuyers will be treated better or worse than banks and other financial lenders under the amended law. But there is a sound reason to treat them a step above these traditional lenders. Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns. Homebuyers simply want the delivery of a good that was promised to them. It is thus unfair to push homebuyers, who did not choose to risk their money on an uncertain venture in the first place, down the pecking order when it comes to sharing the spoils of a bankrupt entity. <br><br> Until now, homebuyers have had to knock on the doors of the courts to uphold their rights, while other stakeholders benefited significantly at their cost. The travails of several homebuyers in the Jaypee insolvency case, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene in favour of homebuyers in the bankruptcy resolution process, is a case in point. The amendment, if it meets expectations, could also reduce the inconsistencies between the IBC and the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA). While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, buyers have been treated as unsecured creditors. The removal of this inconsistency can help courts deliver better justice to homebuyers in the future.
Which of the following is/are true as per the passage? <br> I. Homebuyers are like traditional creditors and want excess returns on their real estate investments. <br> II. RERA was introduced to protect the rights of buyers. <br> III. Most of the cases with under the IBC proceedings pertain to Real Estate.
Explanation: ‘Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns.’ <br> I is incorrect. <br> ‘While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding.’ <br> II is correct. <br> III has not been mentioned in the passage and is incorrect. <br> Only II is correct. Hence, option A is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Homebuyers parted of their money by real estate developers have some relief coming their way. The Union Cabinet has cleared an ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a law which came into force in November 2016 to hasten the process of winding up failed businesses. While the government refused to divulge specific details of the amendment, the change to the law is expected to help offer better treatment to homebuyers when it comes to recovering their dues from bankrupt companies. <br><br> A 14-member panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended last month that homebuyers should be treated as financial creditors during the bankruptcy resolution process. It is yet to be known whether homebuyers will be treated better or worse than banks and other financial lenders under the amended law. But there is a sound reason to treat them a step above these traditional lenders. Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns. Homebuyers simply want the delivery of a good that was promised to them. It is thus unfair to push homebuyers, who did not choose to risk their money on an uncertain venture in the first place, down the pecking order when it comes to sharing the spoils of a bankrupt entity. <br><br> Until now, homebuyers have had to knock on the doors of the courts to uphold their rights, while other stakeholders benefited significantly at their cost. The travails of several homebuyers in the Jaypee insolvency case, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene in favour of homebuyers in the bankruptcy resolution process, is a case in point. The amendment, if it meets expectations, could also reduce the inconsistencies between the IBC and the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA). While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, buyers have been treated as unsecured creditors. The removal of this inconsistency can help courts deliver better justice to homebuyers in the future.
Why was the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code passed?
Explanation: Refer to: ‘The Union Cabinet has cleared an ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a law which came into force in November 2016 to hasten the process of winding up failed businesses.’ <br> As per the fragment highlighted above, option D is correct. <br> Option C is incorrect as merely not performing well is not a criteria and the business needs to have failed. <br> Hence, option D is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Homebuyers parted of their money by real estate developers have some relief coming their way. The Union Cabinet has cleared an ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a law which came into force in November 2016 to hasten the process of winding up failed businesses. While the government refused to divulge specific details of the amendment, the change to the law is expected to help offer better treatment to homebuyers when it comes to recovering their dues from bankrupt companies. <br><br> A 14-member panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended last month that homebuyers should be treated as financial creditors during the bankruptcy resolution process. It is yet to be known whether homebuyers will be treated better or worse than banks and other financial lenders under the amended law. But there is a sound reason to treat them a step above these traditional lenders. Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns. Homebuyers simply want the delivery of a good that was promised to them. It is thus unfair to push homebuyers, who did not choose to risk their money on an uncertain venture in the first place, down the pecking order when it comes to sharing the spoils of a bankrupt entity. <br><br> Until now, homebuyers have had to knock on the doors of the courts to uphold their rights, while other stakeholders benefited significantly at their cost. The travails of several homebuyers in the Jaypee insolvency case, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene in favour of homebuyers in the bankruptcy resolution process, is a case in point. The amendment, if it meets expectations, could also reduce the inconsistencies between the IBC and the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA). While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, buyers have been treated as unsecured creditors. The removal of this inconsistency can help courts deliver better justice to homebuyers in the future.
Which of the following is/are the recommendations of the Panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs? <br> I. Homebuyers to be treated as homeowners and financial debtors. <br> II. Homebuyers would be given first priority and be repaid before the banks and other Institutions. <br> III. Homebuyers to be treated as financial creditors.
Explanation: Refer to: ‘A 14-member panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended last month that homebuyers should be treated as financial creditors during the bankruptcy resolution process.’ <br> I is incorrect while II has not been decided yet. Only III is correct. <br> Hence, option B is correct.
Direction: Study the following information carefully and answer the question given below. <br><br> Homebuyers parted of their money by real estate developers have some relief coming their way. The Union Cabinet has cleared an ordinance amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), a law which came into force in November 2016 to hasten the process of winding up failed businesses. While the government refused to divulge specific details of the amendment, the change to the law is expected to help offer better treatment to homebuyers when it comes to recovering their dues from bankrupt companies. <br><br> A 14-member panel formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended last month that homebuyers should be treated as financial creditors during the bankruptcy resolution process. It is yet to be known whether homebuyers will be treated better or worse than banks and other financial lenders under the amended law. But there is a sound reason to treat them a step above these traditional lenders. Economically speaking, homebuyers are not creditors but only customers to real estate developers. Unlike traditional creditors such as banks and institutional investors, they do not offer their money in expectation of excess returns. Homebuyers simply want the delivery of a good that was promised to them. It is thus unfair to push homebuyers, who did not choose to risk their money on an uncertain venture in the first place, down the pecking order when it comes to sharing the spoils of a bankrupt entity. <br><br> Until now, homebuyers have had to knock on the doors of the courts to uphold their rights, while other stakeholders benefited significantly at their cost. The travails of several homebuyers in the Jaypee insolvency case, in which the Supreme Court had to intervene in favour of homebuyers in the bankruptcy resolution process, is a case in point. The amendment, if it meets expectations, could also reduce the inconsistencies between the IBC and the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA). While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, buyers have been treated as unsecured creditors. The removal of this inconsistency can help courts deliver better justice to homebuyers in the future.
Which of the following is/are the deficiencies of the current IBC? <br> I. It suffers from inconsistencies when compared with the Real Estate Regulation Act. <br> II. Homebuyers have been forced to file lawsuits in Courts to uphold their rights. <br> III. Homebuyers have been given a low status in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Explanation: Refer to: ‘homebuyers have had to knock on the doors of the courts to uphold their rights, while other stakeholders benefited significantly at their cost….The amendment, if it meets expectations, could also reduce the inconsistencies between the IBC and the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA). While RERA was introduced with the goal of protecting the rights of buyers by ensuring the timely and honest delivery of homes, they have had to be content with a relatively low status among the various stakeholders in a bankruptcy proceeding. ’ <br> All of the fragments are correct as per the paragraph above. <br> Hence, option E 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.
