This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 1 January 2026, the same 26 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.
Dispensation
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Impropriety
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Recapitulate
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Interdict
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Infructuous
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Misfeasance
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Malversation
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Interregnum
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Improper behavior or conduct; something unsuitable or inappropriate.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To summarize or repeat the main points briefly.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Wrongful or improper performance of a lawful duty, especially by a public official.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A formal legal objection saying the complaint is insufficient even if the facts are true.
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.
She cooks for ........ everyday.
Explanation: A reflexive pronoun ends in ..self or ...selves and refers to another noun or pronoun in the sentence (yourself, himself, myself, itself etc). <br> The pronoun used in the sentence is 'she' whose corresponding reflexive pronoun is 'herself'.
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.
Amba and Uma ........ sisters.
Explanation: When deciding whether to use 'is' or 'are', look at whether the noun is plural or singular. If the noun is singular, use 'is'. If it is plural or there is more than one noun, use 'are'.
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 remember that........ bought the fruits from ........
Explanation: Personal pronouns are used to indicate people while possessive nouns are used to indicate something belongs to someone. 'Them' and 'they' are both personal pronouns but the difference between them is that 'them' is an object pronoun whereas 'they' is a subject pronoun. 'they' can be used with the subject 'us'.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To live fast
Explanation: To live fast: To live a life of dissipation.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To beat the air
Explanation: To beat the air: To keep doing something despite its apparent pointlessness or futility.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To wrangle over an ass's shadow
Explanation: To wrangle over an ass's shadow: To argue over trivial matters.
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.
What is the criteria (a)/ for assessing (b)/ the candidate's personality (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.
Before we divide this three fold systems (a)/ we must emphasize that (b)/ the features of the constitution do not matter (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.
A woman's make up and problems (a)/ are more complex (b)/ than man (c)/ No error (d)
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br><br> The passage of a statutory resolution and a Bill in Parliament — abrogating Article 370 which confers special political status on Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories — has robbed the Kashmir Valley of its political autonomy, or whatever remains of it after all these years. It may deepen the State’s trust deficit vis-a-vis the Centre. The abrogation of Article 370, being hailed as a glorious move, is itself a misnomer. Amending or abrogating Article 370 is a Constitutional improbability; the amending provision of Article 368 says no Constitutional amendments have effect in relation to J&K unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370 that requires the concurrence of the State’s legislature and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. The moves on Monday can be seen as an exercise in political optics, pandering to a certain majoritarian sentiment. What the Centre has done is to shred even the garb of democracy and spirit of dialogue that successive governments felt was important to engage the people of Kashmir. Through as many as 45 Presidential Orders, the most critical being the Order of 1954, Article 370 has already been divested of its spirit. Secessionist elements and some Indian Constitutional experts have cited this gradual advance of the Union as the conquest of the Valley by stealth. <br><br> What even this controversial process of assimilation, with Article 370 in place, has done is to achieve the growth of local political engagement. It legitimises a pan-Indian sentiment in the Valley where the secessionists would like to portray India as a mere occupational force. Indeed, there are several other provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371(A), 371(G), 371(B), 371(C) that validate indigenous political forces in States like Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Manipur et al. This asymmetric form of federalism has its global parallels in the substantial autonomy enjoyed by Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland within Great Britain. The protests in Hong Kong affirm the relevance of democratic processes inherent in the one country-two systems followed even by China. <br><br> By robbing Article 370 of its special provisions, the BJP has undermined these nuanced and extremely critical democratic processes. Simultaneously, the State has been carved up into two Union Territories with J&K having a legislature and Ladakh without it. The unprecedented step of reorganizing a State and divesting it of its legislative authority without even a semblance of consultation with the stakeholders sets a dangerous precedent underlined by several regional groups and political parties, particularly the DMK and the MDMK. It is possible that the BJP would reap rich political dividends for this muscular policy. But the Centre would be responsible for escalation of violence in the Valley where all doors for political engagement and democratic exchange seem to have been closed down for good. Without meaningful participation of the people, any such unilateral integration can remain at best territorial.
Which among the following is correct regarding the Article 368 in the Constitution of India, as stated in the passage?
Explanation: Refer to, the amending provision of Article 368 says no Constitutional amendments have effect in relation to J&K unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370 that requires the concurrence of the State’s legislature and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. It is stated in the passage that the Article 368 of the Indian Constitution is regarding the amendment of any law in the country. Any law will only be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir if the state legislature also accepts the same. The Presidential Order should also be in force regarding this. Among the given options, we can see that Option C gives us the correct information regarding the Article 368 of the Indian Constitution whereas the rest can be eliminated from consideration as they do not follow from the passage. This 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 passage of a statutory resolution and a Bill in Parliament — abrogating Article 370 which confers special political status on Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories — has robbed the Kashmir Valley of its political autonomy, or whatever remains of it after all these years. It may deepen the State’s trust deficit vis-a-vis the Centre. The abrogation of Article 370, being hailed as a glorious move, is itself a misnomer. Amending or abrogating Article 370 is a Constitutional improbability; the amending provision of Article 368 says no Constitutional amendments have effect in relation to J&K unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370 that requires the concurrence of the State’s legislature and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. The moves on Monday can be seen as an exercise in political optics, pandering to a certain majoritarian sentiment. What the Centre has done is to shred even the garb of democracy and spirit of dialogue that successive governments felt was important to engage the people of Kashmir. Through as many as 45 Presidential Orders, the most critical being the Order of 1954, Article 370 has already been divested of its spirit. Secessionist elements and some Indian Constitutional experts have cited this gradual advance of the Union as the conquest of the Valley by stealth. <br><br> What even this controversial process of assimilation, with Article 370 in place, has done is to achieve the growth of local political engagement. It legitimises a pan-Indian sentiment in the Valley where the secessionists would like to portray India as a mere occupational force. Indeed, there are several other provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371(A), 371(G), 371(B), 371(C) that validate indigenous political forces in States like Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Manipur et al. This asymmetric form of federalism has its global parallels in the substantial autonomy enjoyed by Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland within Great Britain. The protests in Hong Kong affirm the relevance of democratic processes inherent in the one country-two systems followed even by China. <br><br> By robbing Article 370 of its special provisions, the BJP has undermined these nuanced and extremely critical democratic processes. Simultaneously, the State has been carved up into two Union Territories with J&K having a legislature and Ladakh without it. The unprecedented step of reorganizing a State and divesting it of its legislative authority without even a semblance of consultation with the stakeholders sets a dangerous precedent underlined by several regional groups and political parties, particularly the DMK and the MDMK. It is possible that the BJP would reap rich political dividends for this muscular policy. But the Centre would be responsible for escalation of violence in the Valley where all doors for political engagement and democratic exchange seem to have been closed down for good. Without meaningful participation of the people, any such unilateral integration can remain at best territorial.
Which among the following is correct regarding Scotland and Wales as stated in the passage?
Explanation: Refer to, This asymmetric form of federalism has its global parallels in the substantial autonomy enjoyed by Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland within Great Britain. It is stated in the passage that the area of Scotland and Wales are within the jurisdiction of Great Britain and the areas are governed by the autonomous bodies. This is actually similar to the status of Jammu and Kashmir in India because till now Jammu and Kashmir also enjoyed similar autonomy in India. Among the given options, we can choose Option C since it provides us the correct information regarding similarity between Jammu and Kashmir and Scotland and Wales. Other options can be eliminated since they do not follow from the passage. This 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 passage of a statutory resolution and a Bill in Parliament — abrogating Article 370 which confers special political status on Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories — has robbed the Kashmir Valley of its political autonomy, or whatever remains of it after all these years. It may deepen the State’s trust deficit vis-a-vis the Centre. The abrogation of Article 370, being hailed as a glorious move, is itself a misnomer. Amending or abrogating Article 370 is a Constitutional improbability; the amending provision of Article 368 says no Constitutional amendments have effect in relation to J&K unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370 that requires the concurrence of the State’s legislature and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. The moves on Monday can be seen as an exercise in political optics, pandering to a certain majoritarian sentiment. What the Centre has done is to shred even the garb of democracy and spirit of dialogue that successive governments felt was important to engage the people of Kashmir. Through as many as 45 Presidential Orders, the most critical being the Order of 1954, Article 370 has already been divested of its spirit. Secessionist elements and some Indian Constitutional experts have cited this gradual advance of the Union as the conquest of the Valley by stealth. <br><br> What even this controversial process of assimilation, with Article 370 in place, has done is to achieve the growth of local political engagement. It legitimises a pan-Indian sentiment in the Valley where the secessionists would like to portray India as a mere occupational force. Indeed, there are several other provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371(A), 371(G), 371(B), 371(C) that validate indigenous political forces in States like Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Manipur et al. This asymmetric form of federalism has its global parallels in the substantial autonomy enjoyed by Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland within Great Britain. The protests in Hong Kong affirm the relevance of democratic processes inherent in the one country-two systems followed even by China. <br><br> By robbing Article 370 of its special provisions, the BJP has undermined these nuanced and extremely critical democratic processes. Simultaneously, the State has been carved up into two Union Territories with J&K having a legislature and Ladakh without it. The unprecedented step of reorganizing a State and divesting it of its legislative authority without even a semblance of consultation with the stakeholders sets a dangerous precedent underlined by several regional groups and political parties, particularly the DMK and the MDMK. It is possible that the BJP would reap rich political dividends for this muscular policy. But the Centre would be responsible for escalation of violence in the Valley where all doors for political engagement and democratic exchange seem to have been closed down for good. Without meaningful participation of the people, any such unilateral integration can remain at best territorial.
Which among the following is correct regarding the possible consequence of the decision taken by the centre to abrogate Section 370?
Explanation: It is clear from the passage that the decision by the government to revoke Section 370 without discussing anything with the local political parties will have far reaching impact on the relationship between India and Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore the people in the area will not feel that Indian government is working to fulfill their interests but they are only working in the interests of the mainland country. It will definitely increase the trust deficit between the people in India and the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Among the given options, we can easily choose Option B since it provides us the correct information whereas the rest can be eliminated from consideration since they do not follow from the passage. This makes Option B the correct choice among the given options.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br><br> The passage of a statutory resolution and a Bill in Parliament — abrogating Article 370 which confers special political status on Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories — has robbed the Kashmir Valley of its political autonomy, or whatever remains of it after all these years. It may deepen the State’s trust deficit vis-a-vis the Centre. The abrogation of Article 370, being hailed as a glorious move, is itself a misnomer. Amending or abrogating Article 370 is a Constitutional improbability; the amending provision of Article 368 says no Constitutional amendments have effect in relation to J&K unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370 that requires the concurrence of the State’s legislature and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. The moves on Monday can be seen as an exercise in political optics, pandering to a certain majoritarian sentiment. What the Centre has done is to shred even the garb of democracy and spirit of dialogue that successive governments felt was important to engage the people of Kashmir. Through as many as 45 Presidential Orders, the most critical being the Order of 1954, Article 370 has already been divested of its spirit. Secessionist elements and some Indian Constitutional experts have cited this gradual advance of the Union as the conquest of the Valley by stealth. <br><br> What even this controversial process of assimilation, with Article 370 in place, has done is to achieve the growth of local political engagement. It legitimises a pan-Indian sentiment in the Valley where the secessionists would like to portray India as a mere occupational force. Indeed, there are several other provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371(A), 371(G), 371(B), 371(C) that validate indigenous political forces in States like Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Manipur et al. This asymmetric form of federalism has its global parallels in the substantial autonomy enjoyed by Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland within Great Britain. The protests in Hong Kong affirm the relevance of democratic processes inherent in the one country-two systems followed even by China. <br><br> By robbing Article 370 of its special provisions, the BJP has undermined these nuanced and extremely critical democratic processes. Simultaneously, the State has been carved up into two Union Territories with J&K having a legislature and Ladakh without it. The unprecedented step of reorganizing a State and divesting it of its legislative authority without even a semblance of consultation with the stakeholders sets a dangerous precedent underlined by several regional groups and political parties, particularly the DMK and the MDMK. It is possible that the BJP would reap rich political dividends for this muscular policy. But the Centre would be responsible for escalation of violence in the Valley where all doors for political engagement and democratic exchange seem to have been closed down for good. Without meaningful participation of the people, any such unilateral integration can remain at best territorial.
Which among the following is/are correct regarding the decision taken by the Government of India to revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution? <br><br> I. Jammu and Kashmir will be a Union Territory with a legislature whereas Ladakh will not have the same. <br> II. This decision will help the separatists in the valley to portray India as a force working against the interests of the valley people. <br> III. This decision will not stand in the court of law and there has already been petition in the Supreme Court against it.
Explanation: Statement I is correct since it has been stated in the passage that J & K will not be a state anymore and it will only be a UT. Apart from that, Ladakh will also be a UT but there will not be any legislative assembly there unlike Jammu and Kashmir. Refer to, Simultaneously, the State has been carved up into two Union Territories with J&K having a legislature and Ladakh without it. <br> Statement II is correct since it has been stated in the passage that the decision taken unilaterally by the Indian government is actually going to hurt the sentiment of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The separatists there will take this opportunity to brainwash the people there against the interests of the valley people. Refer to, It legitimises a pan-Indian sentiment in the Valley where the secessionists would like to portray India as a mere occupational force. <br> Statement III is not correct since there are references that the government has not done it in the correct manner but it cannot be said that there have been applications already in the Supreme Court. Therefore it cannot be considered as correct. This makes Option A the correct choice among the given options.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br><br> The passage of a statutory resolution and a Bill in Parliament — abrogating Article 370 which confers special political status on Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories — has robbed the Kashmir Valley of its political autonomy, or whatever remains of it after all these years. It may deepen the State’s trust deficit vis-a-vis the Centre. The abrogation of Article 370, being hailed as a glorious move, is itself a misnomer. Amending or abrogating Article 370 is a Constitutional improbability; the amending provision of Article 368 says no Constitutional amendments have effect in relation to J&K unless applied by Order of the President under Article 370 that requires the concurrence of the State’s legislature and ratification by its Constituent Assembly. The moves on Monday can be seen as an exercise in political optics, pandering to a certain majoritarian sentiment. What the Centre has done is to shred even the garb of democracy and spirit of dialogue that successive governments felt was important to engage the people of Kashmir. Through as many as 45 Presidential Orders, the most critical being the Order of 1954, Article 370 has already been divested of its spirit. Secessionist elements and some Indian Constitutional experts have cited this gradual advance of the Union as the conquest of the Valley by stealth. <br><br> What even this controversial process of assimilation, with Article 370 in place, has done is to achieve the growth of local political engagement. It legitimises a pan-Indian sentiment in the Valley where the secessionists would like to portray India as a mere occupational force. Indeed, there are several other provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371(A), 371(G), 371(B), 371(C) that validate indigenous political forces in States like Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, Manipur et al. This asymmetric form of federalism has its global parallels in the substantial autonomy enjoyed by Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland within Great Britain. The protests in Hong Kong affirm the relevance of democratic processes inherent in the one country-two systems followed even by China. <br><br> By robbing Article 370 of its special provisions, the BJP has undermined these nuanced and extremely critical democratic processes. Simultaneously, the State has been carved up into two Union Territories with J&K having a legislature and Ladakh without it. The unprecedented step of reorganizing a State and divesting it of its legislative authority without even a semblance of consultation with the stakeholders sets a dangerous precedent underlined by several regional groups and political parties, particularly the DMK and the MDMK. It is possible that the BJP would reap rich political dividends for this muscular policy. But the Centre would be responsible for escalation of violence in the Valley where all doors for political engagement and democratic exchange seem to have been closed down for good. Without meaningful participation of the people, any such unilateral integration can remain at best territorial.
Which among the following is SIMILAR in meaning to the word Misnomer as used in the passage?
Explanation: The word misnomer has been used in the passage in the sense that the image that is being created of abrogation of Section 370 being a bold decision is actually wrong since the government has not done it in the correct manner. It should have consulted the local political leaders before taking such a decision. This will have long lasting impact on the area and its people. Among the given options, it is easy to point out C as the correct meaning of the given word. Other words are not correct and can be eliminated. This 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.
