This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 19 December 2025, the same 27 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.
Expunge
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Reprimand
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Feign
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Formulate
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Sanitize
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Compromise
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Metaphor
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Safeguard
Out of given alternatives select the word which is correctly spelt.
Never done or known before; completely new in experience.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Scold or rebuke someone sharply for a fault or wrongdoing.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Erase or remove completely (especially a mistake, record, or memory).
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
The fact of having a right to something; the belief that you deserve special treatment.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Never done or known before; completely new in experience.
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.
……... goods were carried on the truck.
Explanation: The question asks which quantifier best fits the sentence: ... goods were carried on the truck. Let's define the relevant terms first. <br> Quantifiers are words that express quantity. They tell us how many or how much of something there is. They modify nouns. <br> Now, let's analyze the options: <br> Option A: A little<br> A little is used with uncountable nouns (nouns that can't be counted individually, like sugar, water, or information). Goods, while a collective noun, can refer to a number of individual items, therefore a little is incorrect. <br> Option B: Several<br> Several means more than two but not many. It's used with countable nouns. This is a good fit for goods since we are implying more than two items were carried on the truck. <br> Option C: Many<br> Many means a large number. While it's grammatically correct with a countable noun like goods, several is a better choice because many implies a significantly larger quantity than what might typically be carried on a single truck. Several is more appropriate for the context. <br> Option D: A few<br> A few also modifies countable nouns, but it suggests a small number – only a couple. The sentence doesn't imply a small number; it's more likely several. <br> Therefore, the best answer is Option B: Several because it accurately describes a quantity of goods that fits the general context of items being carried on a truck without specifying an excessively large or small number.
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.
I can't remember him ........ a single day off work.
Explanation: Gerunds can be used after certain verbs including enjoy, fancy, discuss, dislike, finish, mind, suggest, recommend, keep, and avoid. After prepositions of place and time. Example: I made dinner before getting home. <br> He looked unhappy after seeing his work schedule
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.
Olga ........ gym this evening.
Explanation: The sentence is in present continuous form. We use the present continuous to refer to the future when we talk about plans and arrangements that have already been made. In present continuous we use am, is, are + -ing form of the verb.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
A sop to Cerberus
Explanation: A sop to cerberus: a concession or bribe to conciliate a person otherwise liable to be troublesome.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To look down one's nose at
Explanation: To look down one's nose at: to think of or treat (someone or something) as unimportant or not worthy of respect.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To pour oil in troubled water
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.
Undoubtedly it was my wife not me (a)/ who said that (b) the trip be cancelled (c)/ No error (d)
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.
For her sake as well as for her husband (a)/ i hoped earnestly (b)/ that she might still be found (c)/ No error (d)
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 really disapointed in (a)/ not having saw my friends (b)/ while I was in New Delhi on Vacation (c)/ No error (d)
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><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. <br><br> 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. 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><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. <br><br> 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.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><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. <br><br> 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 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.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><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. <br><br> 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 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.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><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. <br><br> 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.
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.
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.
