This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 14 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.
Moot
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Splurge
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Bedraggled
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Skullduggery
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Hodgepodge
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Brouhaha
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Miasma
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Dour
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Spend money freely or extravagantly.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A confused mixture of different things.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A heavy, unpleasant, and unhealthy smell or vapor.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Slender and graceful in appearance.
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 will have to study very hard, ........ I can pass the exam.
Explanation: We use 'so that' and 'in order that' to talk about purpose. We often use them with modal verbs (can, would, will, etc.). 'So that' is far more common than 'in order that', and 'in order that' is more formal.
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.
Mary........ seats for us.
Explanation: Definition: <br> The sentence suggests a recommendation or duty regarding saving seats. The correct verb choice should indicate an obligation or advisability. Both ought to and should are modal verbs used to express advice or recommendations. Correct Answer: <br> The correct option is Option B: should save. Explanation: <br> - Should is a modal verb used to give advice, make recommendations, or express duty. <br> - In this sentence, should save means that it is advisable or expected for Mary to save seats for us. <br> - The correct sentence is: Mary should save seats for us. <br> Why Other Options Are Incorrect: <br> - Option A: ought to save ? Although ought to is similar to should, it is less commonly used in modern English and sounds slightly more formal. <br> - Option C: would have saved ? Incorrect because would have saved is in the past perfect conditional, which is used when referring to something that did not actually happen in the past. <br> - Option D: would save ? Incorrect because would save is used in conditional sentences, often depending on another action (e.g., Mary would save seats if she arrived early). <br> Final Answer: Option B: should save.
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.
The sky is clear, it........ rain today.
Explanation: Both 'may' and 'might' are used to express the possibility of some future action: 'might' is more tentative than 'may'.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Rajeev achieved success by resorting to a hole and corner method.
Explanation: hole and corner: furtive or secretive
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
There is no love lost between the two neighbours.
Explanation: no love lost: intense hatred.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
He is a person after my own heart.
Explanation: person after my own heart: someone who likes the same things.
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 tried to reason him (a)/ out off (b)/ his fears (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.
He is (a)/ the man (b)/ I was looking (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.
Polyandry still (a)/ exists among (b)/ certain communities (c)/ No error (d)
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br><br> In the end, the hoped-for knight-in-shining armour never arrived and Jet Airways is now in insolvency court. This marks the last act in a long-winded saga that saw the beleaguered airline and its stakeholders lurch from despondency to hope to gloom once again. The debt-laden airline’s troubles began when it defaulted on a loan last December. Hectic salvage attempts at the airline since then have come to naught. Thousands of employees and many operational creditors may end up being the biggest losers in the fiasco. <br><br> Among the many factors that led to this state of affairs was the promoter Naresh Goyal’s intransigence on valuation and not ceding majority control — till he was eventually forced out in end March. Then came the volte-face by the SBI-led lender consortium on its emergency funding commitment of Rs. 1,500 crore, which scuttled the bidding process. The airline’s already truncated operations rapidly unravelled and it stopped flying mid-April. Jet’s assets — prized airport slots, valuable fleet, trained employees — were up for grabs and the competition has since moved in for the kill. Not surprisingly, most potential suitors for Jet Airways backed off and just one conditional bid was received for a minority stake from strategic partner Etihad Airways. Later, the Hinduja Group also threw its hat into the ring. But lenders seem to have found these offers unappealing and have now decided to refer Jet to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for insolvency proceedings. <br><br> Higher value could have been salvaged for all of Jet’s stakeholders, had the lenders acted sooner and more decisively. The saga as it has played out has been beset with avoidable delays and wrong signals. First, Naresh Goyal was given an inordinately long rope by the lenders which worked to the detriment of everyone else. Thankfully the prospect of a backdoor entry by the promoter was thwarted. But the lenders’ decision to put off the IBC route in favour of a majority equity stake for themselves is difficult to explain. This leads one to wonder whether the need to avoid the bad optics of job losses and fare hikes in the election season was at play. Debt restructuring was a more pragmatic course if they were worried about long delays under IBC but that required lenders to follow through of their emergency funding commitment. It isn’t clear what really changed in a fortnight that the lenders backtracked on that commitment. In the bargain, almost everyone except Jet’s rivals has lost value. While the creative destruction cycle in businesses should be allowed to play out, the process should be fair, transparent and above reproach. The lenders now say that under the IBC, it is possible to give potential investors the exemptions they seek from SEBI norms. This offers a glimmer of hope that some resolution, even if sub-optimal, may be possible. But stakeholders should keep expectations low, given that the resolution of cases so far referred under IBC have been fraught with long delays and disputes.
Which among the following gives us the correct picture regarding the opinion of the author about the IBC proceedings?
Explanation: Refer to, But stakeholders should keep expectations low, given that the resolution of cases so far referred under IBC have been fraught with long delays and disputes. <br> It is clear from the above lines that the author is not very hopeful regarding the IBC proceedings in India since most of the times such proceedings have taken too much time to complete and also most of the times they have not been free from the disputes regarding the awards pronounced through such proceedings. All the parties have not agreed to such awards ultimately. <br> Among the given options, we can see that there is only Option E that explains the correct opinion of the author regarding the IBC proceedings in India whereas all the other statements can be eliminated due to the fact that they do not follow from the given passage. <br> This makes Option E the correct choice among the given options.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. <br><br><br> In the end, the hoped-for knight-in-shining armour never arrived and Jet Airways is now in insolvency court. This marks the last act in a long-winded saga that saw the beleaguered airline and its stakeholders lurch from despondency to hope to gloom once again. The debt-laden airline’s troubles began when it defaulted on a loan last December. Hectic salvage attempts at the airline since then have come to naught. Thousands of employees and many operational creditors may end up being the biggest losers in the fiasco. <br><br> Among the many factors that led to this state of affairs was the promoter Naresh Goyal’s intransigence on valuation and not ceding majority control — till he was eventually forced out in end March. Then came the volte-face by the SBI-led lender consortium on its emergency funding commitment of Rs. 1,500 crore, which scuttled the bidding process. The airline’s already truncated operations rapidly unravelled and it stopped flying mid-April. Jet’s assets — prized airport slots, valuable fleet, trained employees — were up for grabs and the competition has since moved in for the kill. Not surprisingly, most potential suitors for Jet Airways backed off and just one conditional bid was received for a minority stake from strategic partner Etihad Airways. Later, the Hinduja Group also threw its hat into the ring. But lenders seem to have found these offers unappealing and have now decided to refer Jet to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for insolvency proceedings. <br><br> Higher value could have been salvaged for all of Jet’s stakeholders, had the lenders acted sooner and more decisively. The saga as it has played out has been beset with avoidable delays and wrong signals. First, Naresh Goyal was given an inordinately long rope by the lenders which worked to the detriment of everyone else. Thankfully the prospect of a backdoor entry by the promoter was thwarted. But the lenders’ decision to put off the IBC route in favour of a majority equity stake for themselves is difficult to explain. This leads one to wonder whether the need to avoid the bad optics of job losses and fare hikes in the election season was at play. Debt restructuring was a more pragmatic course if they were worried about long delays under IBC but that required lenders to follow through of their emergency funding commitment. It isn’t clear what really changed in a fortnight that the lenders backtracked on that commitment. In the bargain, almost everyone except Jet’s rivals has lost value. While the creative destruction cycle in businesses should be allowed to play out, the process should be fair, transparent and above reproach. The lenders now say that under the IBC, it is possible to give potential investors the exemptions they seek from SEBI norms. This offers a glimmer of hope that some resolution, even if sub-optimal, may be possible. But stakeholders should keep expectations low, given that the resolution of cases so far referred under IBC have been fraught with long delays and disputes.
Which among the following has / have been attributed to the failure of the Jet Airways, as per the given passage?
Explanation: Statement A is correct since it is stated in the passage that the owner of Jet Airways has been given a lot of chances to revive the airline but it is hard to explain on what basis the person has been given so many opportunities. The lenders should have handled the situation in a better manner. Refer to, First, Naresh Goyal was given an inordinately long rope by the lenders which worked to the detriment of everyone else. Thankfully the prospect of a backdoor entry by the promoter was thwarted. <br> Statement B is also correct due to the fact that it is hard to explain why the lenders delayed in referring the case to the National Company Law Tribunal and also they decided to take majority stake without any valid reason. Therefore it has been the case that the lenders have shown lack of judgment in the whole episode. Refer to, But the lenders’ decision to put off the IBC route in favour of a majority equity stake for themselves is difficult to explain. <br> Statement C is not correct since it is not correct as per the information given in the passage that SEBI has barred Jet Airways to tap the market for raising funds for the company. Hence this cannot be considered as a reason for the failure of Jet Airways. <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> In the end, the hoped-for knight-in-shining armour never arrived and Jet Airways is now in insolvency court. This marks the last act in a long-winded saga that saw the beleaguered airline and its stakeholders lurch from despondency to hope to gloom once again. The debt-laden airline’s troubles began when it defaulted on a loan last December. Hectic salvage attempts at the airline since then have come to naught. Thousands of employees and many operational creditors may end up being the biggest losers in the fiasco. <br><br> Among the many factors that led to this state of affairs was the promoter Naresh Goyal’s intransigence on valuation and not ceding majority control — till he was eventually forced out in end March. Then came the volte-face by the SBI-led lender consortium on its emergency funding commitment of Rs. 1,500 crore, which scuttled the bidding process. The airline’s already truncated operations rapidly unravelled and it stopped flying mid-April. Jet’s assets — prized airport slots, valuable fleet, trained employees — were up for grabs and the competition has since moved in for the kill. Not surprisingly, most potential suitors for Jet Airways backed off and just one conditional bid was received for a minority stake from strategic partner Etihad Airways. Later, the Hinduja Group also threw its hat into the ring. But lenders seem to have found these offers unappealing and have now decided to refer Jet to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for insolvency proceedings. <br><br> Higher value could have been salvaged for all of Jet’s stakeholders, had the lenders acted sooner and more decisively. The saga as it has played out has been beset with avoidable delays and wrong signals. First, Naresh Goyal was given an inordinately long rope by the lenders which worked to the detriment of everyone else. Thankfully the prospect of a backdoor entry by the promoter was thwarted. But the lenders’ decision to put off the IBC route in favour of a majority equity stake for themselves is difficult to explain. This leads one to wonder whether the need to avoid the bad optics of job losses and fare hikes in the election season was at play. Debt restructuring was a more pragmatic course if they were worried about long delays under IBC but that required lenders to follow through of their emergency funding commitment. It isn’t clear what really changed in a fortnight that the lenders backtracked on that commitment. In the bargain, almost everyone except Jet’s rivals has lost value. While the creative destruction cycle in businesses should be allowed to play out, the process should be fair, transparent and above reproach. The lenders now say that under the IBC, it is possible to give potential investors the exemptions they seek from SEBI norms. This offers a glimmer of hope that some resolution, even if sub-optimal, may be possible. But stakeholders should keep expectations low, given that the resolution of cases so far referred under IBC have been fraught with long delays and disputes.
Which among the following is the reason that the lenders have not accepted the bids received to acquire Jet Airways?
Explanation: Refer to, Not surprisingly, most potential suitors for Jet Airways backed off and just one conditional bid was received for a minority stake from strategic partner Etihad Airways. Later, the Hinduja Group also threw its hat into the ring. But lenders seem to have found these offers unappealing and have now decided to refer Jet to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for insolvency proceedings. <br> It is very much clear from the above lines that the lenders have not found the bids submitted by Etihard Airways and Hinduja Group as acceptable and that is why they have rejected the bids altogether and have referred the case to the National Company Law Tribunal. <br> Among the given options, there is Option B that explains the actual reason why the lenders have not accepted the bids submitted by the parties in the Jet Airways case whereas the others can be eliminated for the fact that they do not follow from the information given in the passage. <br> 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> In the end, the hoped-for knight-in-shining armour never arrived and Jet Airways is now in insolvency court. This marks the last act in a long-winded saga that saw the beleaguered airline and its stakeholders lurch from despondency to hope to gloom once again. The debt-laden airline’s troubles began when it defaulted on a loan last December. Hectic salvage attempts at the airline since then have come to naught. Thousands of employees and many operational creditors may end up being the biggest losers in the fiasco. <br><br> Among the many factors that led to this state of affairs was the promoter Naresh Goyal’s intransigence on valuation and not ceding majority control — till he was eventually forced out in end March. Then came the volte-face by the SBI-led lender consortium on its emergency funding commitment of Rs. 1,500 crore, which scuttled the bidding process. The airline’s already truncated operations rapidly unravelled and it stopped flying mid-April. Jet’s assets — prized airport slots, valuable fleet, trained employees — were up for grabs and the competition has since moved in for the kill. Not surprisingly, most potential suitors for Jet Airways backed off and just one conditional bid was received for a minority stake from strategic partner Etihad Airways. Later, the Hinduja Group also threw its hat into the ring. But lenders seem to have found these offers unappealing and have now decided to refer Jet to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for insolvency proceedings. <br><br> Higher value could have been salvaged for all of Jet’s stakeholders, had the lenders acted sooner and more decisively. The saga as it has played out has been beset with avoidable delays and wrong signals. First, Naresh Goyal was given an inordinately long rope by the lenders which worked to the detriment of everyone else. Thankfully the prospect of a backdoor entry by the promoter was thwarted. But the lenders’ decision to put off the IBC route in favour of a majority equity stake for themselves is difficult to explain. This leads one to wonder whether the need to avoid the bad optics of job losses and fare hikes in the election season was at play. Debt restructuring was a more pragmatic course if they were worried about long delays under IBC but that required lenders to follow through of their emergency funding commitment. It isn’t clear what really changed in a fortnight that the lenders backtracked on that commitment. In the bargain, almost everyone except Jet’s rivals has lost value. While the creative destruction cycle in businesses should be allowed to play out, the process should be fair, transparent and above reproach. The lenders now say that under the IBC, it is possible to give potential investors the exemptions they seek from SEBI norms. This offers a glimmer of hope that some resolution, even if sub-optimal, may be possible. But stakeholders should keep expectations low, given that the resolution of cases so far referred under IBC have been fraught with long delays and disputes.
Which among the following has been identified as the main culprit in the Jet Airways saga as it has played out, as described by the author?
Explanation: Here we can see that the author is mainly disappointed with the lenders for the way in which they have handled the case. They have only given a long rope to the promoter group and also they have not taken appropriate decisions when required making it difficult to do something for the company. Refer to, Higher value could have been salvaged for all of Jet’s stakeholders, had the lenders acted sooner and more decisively. The saga as it has played out has been beset with avoidable delays and wrong signals. <br> Therefore, we can see that Option B points out the main culprit as per the author in the given passage whereas all the others can be eliminated from consideration. <br> 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> In the end, the hoped-for knight-in-shining armour never arrived and Jet Airways is now in insolvency court. This marks the last act in a long-winded saga that saw the beleaguered airline and its stakeholders lurch from despondency to hope to gloom once again. The debt-laden airline’s troubles began when it defaulted on a loan last December. Hectic salvage attempts at the airline since then have come to naught. Thousands of employees and many operational creditors may end up being the biggest losers in the fiasco. <br><br> Among the many factors that led to this state of affairs was the promoter Naresh Goyal’s intransigence on valuation and not ceding majority control — till he was eventually forced out in end March. Then came the volte-face by the SBI-led lender consortium on its emergency funding commitment of Rs. 1,500 crore, which scuttled the bidding process. The airline’s already truncated operations rapidly unravelled and it stopped flying mid-April. Jet’s assets — prized airport slots, valuable fleet, trained employees — were up for grabs and the competition has since moved in for the kill. Not surprisingly, most potential suitors for Jet Airways backed off and just one conditional bid was received for a minority stake from strategic partner Etihad Airways. Later, the Hinduja Group also threw its hat into the ring. But lenders seem to have found these offers unappealing and have now decided to refer Jet to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for insolvency proceedings. <br><br> Higher value could have been salvaged for all of Jet’s stakeholders, had the lenders acted sooner and more decisively. The saga as it has played out has been beset with avoidable delays and wrong signals. First, Naresh Goyal was given an inordinately long rope by the lenders which worked to the detriment of everyone else. Thankfully the prospect of a backdoor entry by the promoter was thwarted. But the lenders’ decision to put off the IBC route in favour of a majority equity stake for themselves is difficult to explain. This leads one to wonder whether the need to avoid the bad optics of job losses and fare hikes in the election season was at play. Debt restructuring was a more pragmatic course if they were worried about long delays under IBC but that required lenders to follow through of their emergency funding commitment. It isn’t clear what really changed in a fortnight that the lenders backtracked on that commitment. In the bargain, almost everyone except Jet’s rivals has lost value. While the creative destruction cycle in businesses should be allowed to play out, the process should be fair, transparent and above reproach. The lenders now say that under the IBC, it is possible to give potential investors the exemptions they seek from SEBI norms. This offers a glimmer of hope that some resolution, even if sub-optimal, may be possible. But stakeholders should keep expectations low, given that the resolution of cases so far referred under IBC have been fraught with long delays and disputes.
Which among the following is implied by the phrase hoped-for-knight-in-shiningarmour as used in the given passage?
Explanation: If we take the connotation of the phrase in the given passage we can find out that we are talking about a chivalrous person who comes to the rescue of a woman in danger but here it can be used in a slightly different manner such as somebody who comes to rescue of a company which is in danger. None of the given options explains this meaning of the given phrase and that is why all these options can be eliminated from consideration. This makes Option E 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.
