This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 16 February 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.
Accomplice
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Cerebral
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Grueling
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Plaintiff
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Provincial
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Spendthrift
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Sullen
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Unwitting
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A person who helps someone else commit a crime or wrongdoing.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Extremely tiring and demanding; very difficult to endure.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Bad-tempered and silent; showing gloom or resentment.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A person who has served in the military, especially in war; also, someone with long experience in a particular field.
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 don't know the city...... he lives.
Explanation: The correct answer is B: where. <br> First, let's define the terms. <br> Where: An interrogative adverb used to ask about a place or location. <br> What: An interrogative pronoun used to ask about things or which thing. <br> When: An interrogative adverb used to ask about time. <br> Which: An interrogative pronoun used to ask about a choice from a defined set of options. <br> The sentence I don’t know the city . . . . . he lives requires an interrogative word to specify the location where the person lives. Therefore, only where fits grammatically and contextually. <br> The sentence should read: I don’t know the city where he lives. The clause where he lives acts as a relative clause modifying city , specifying which city is being discussed. <br> Options A, C, and D are incorrect because they don't address the question of location. What asks about the identity of a thing, when asks about time, and which asks about a selection from a set of possibilities. None of these are relevant to the location of the city.
A statement with one blank is given below. Choose the set of words from the given options which can be used to fill the given blank.
He always stammers in public meetings, but his today's speech......
Explanation: Defining stammer : <br> To stammer means to speak with sudden involuntary stops and repetitions. <br> Analyzing the Options: <br> Option A: was fairly audible to everyone. This is plausible, as audibility doesn't directly contradict stammering. He could have stammered slightly but still been heard. <br> Option B: was not liked by the audience. This doesn't directly address the contrast introduced by his usual stammering. The audience's opinion is unrelated to his fluency. <br> Option C: as not received by the audience. This is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make sense in context. <br> Option D: was surprisingly fluent. This option is the best fit. Surprisingly fluent directly contrasts with his usual stammering. It shows that something unexpected and positive happened in his speech delivery. <br> Correct Answer Explanation: <br> The sentence requires an answer that highlights a positive change in his speech, contrasting his usual stammering. Option D, was surprisingly fluent, perfectly captures this contrast. The word surprisingly emphasizes the unexpected nature of his fluent speech, making it the most suitable and grammatically correct choice.
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 have been in Sector: 8, Gandhinagar.......1997.
Explanation: Prepositions of time indicate the duration or point in time of an action or state. <br> For indicates a duration of time. <br> From indicates a starting point in time. <br> About indicates an approximation of time. <br> Since indicates a point in time from which an action or state has continued to the present. <br> The correct answer is D: since. The sentence describes a continuous state (being in Sector 8, Gandhinagar) that began in 1997 and continues to the present time when the sentence was spoken or written. Since 1997 accurately reflects this continuous state. <br> Option A, for, is incorrect because for requires a duration, not a starting point. We would need to specify a duration, e.g., We have been in Sector 8, Gandhinagar for 25 years. <br> Option B, from, is incorrect because from only indicates a starting point. It doesn't convey the continuous nature of the state. It would imply they moved there in 1997 but might have left since then. <br> Option C, about, is incorrect because it suggests an approximation. The sentence indicates a precise year (1997), making about inappropriate.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To take a leaf out of somebody's book
Explanation: To take a leaf out of somebody's book: to behave or to do something in a way that someone else would.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To strike one's colours
Explanation: To strike one's colours: To surrender.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To put one on one's mettle
Explanation: To put one on one's mettle: in a situation in which they must prove their worth, skill, or ability.
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) My father/ (b) has left/ (c) for Mumbai last Sunday./ (d) No error.
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) Don't think/ (b) you can deceive me/ (c) like you did my brother./ (d) No Error.
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) How I wish it had been me/ (b) whom you had frightened/ (c) and not my daughter. (d) No error.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions. <br><br><br> E-pharmacies, which operate through websites or smartphone apps on the Internet, offer medicines for sale at a discount of at least 20% when compared to traditional pharmacists, with the added convenience of home delivery of medicines to one’s doorstep. For scheduled drugs, patients can submit photographs of prescriptions while placing orders. Despite operating in India for at least four years now, the legal status of these e-pharmacies is not clear because the government is yet to notify into law draft rules that it published in 2018. <br><br> The fiercest opponents of e-pharmacies are trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists. They argue that their livelihoods are threatened by venture capital backed e-pharmacies and that jobs of thousands are on the line. Apart from these obvious arguments, these trade associations also spin imaginary tales of how e-pharmacies will open the door to drug abuse and also the sale of sub-standard or counterfeit drugs, thereby threatening public health. There is enough evidence on record to demonstrate how existing pharmacies contribute generously to drug abuse and sale of sub-standard medicine. There is no reason to suspect that e-pharmacies are going to worsen the situation in anyway. <br><br> The more prudent way of looking at the entry of e-pharmacies is competition and the resultant effect it will have on lowering the price of medicine for Indian patients. Viewed from this perspective, there is virtually no doubt that e-pharmacies should be allowed to operate because the history of India’s trade associations of pharmacists is one of rampant, unabashed cartelisation that has resulted in an artificial inflation of medicine prices. <br><br> This practice of two competitors colluding to fix the sale price and area of operation is called cartelisation, and is illegal under India’s Competition Act. The premise of this law is that a free market is efficient only if all sellers are competing with each other to offer the lowest price to the customer.
Why is the legal status of e-pharmacies not clear in India? <br><br> I. Vested interests like trade associations of brick and mortar pharmacies do not want such pharmacies to sustain. <br> II. The government has not yet notified any proper laws to govern such pharmacies. <br> III. There are various court cases pending pertaining to such pharmacies.
Explanation: Refer to: ‘Despite operating in India for at least four years now, the legal status of these e-pharmacies is not clear because the government is yet to notify into law draft rules that it published in 2018.’ As per the fragments highlighted above, only II fits in well. The other statements have not been mentioned in the passage. Hence, option A is correct.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions. <br><br><br> E-pharmacies, which operate through websites or smartphone apps on the Internet, offer medicines for sale at a discount of at least 20% when compared to traditional pharmacists, with the added convenience of home delivery of medicines to one’s doorstep. For scheduled drugs, patients can submit photographs of prescriptions while placing orders. Despite operating in India for at least four years now, the legal status of these e-pharmacies is not clear because the government is yet to notify into law draft rules that it published in 2018. <br><br> The fiercest opponents of e-pharmacies are trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists. They argue that their livelihoods are threatened by venture capital backed e-pharmacies and that jobs of thousands are on the line. Apart from these obvious arguments, these trade associations also spin imaginary tales of how e-pharmacies will open the door to drug abuse and also the sale of sub-standard or counterfeit drugs, thereby threatening public health. There is enough evidence on record to demonstrate how existing pharmacies contribute generously to drug abuse and sale of sub-standard medicine. There is no reason to suspect that e-pharmacies are going to worsen the situation in anyway. <br><br> The more prudent way of looking at the entry of e-pharmacies is competition and the resultant effect it will have on lowering the price of medicine for Indian patients. Viewed from this perspective, there is virtually no doubt that e-pharmacies should be allowed to operate because the history of India’s trade associations of pharmacists is one of rampant, unabashed cartelisation that has resulted in an artificial inflation of medicine prices. <br><br> This practice of two competitors colluding to fix the sale price and area of operation is called cartelisation, and is illegal under India’s Competition Act. The premise of this law is that a free market is efficient only if all sellers are competing with each other to offer the lowest price to the customer.
Why do trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists oppose e-pharmacies? <br><br> I. They will lead to possible drug abuse and sale of counterfeit medicines. <br> II. They will have to adapt and move online as well in the future. <br> III. Their livelihood is threatened by such e-pharmacies.
Explanation: Refer to: The fiercest opponents of e-pharmacies are trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists. They argue that their livelihoods are threatened by venture capital backed e-pharmacies and that jobs of thousands are on the line. Apart from these obvious arguments, these trade associations also spin imaginary tales of how e-pharmacies will open the door to drug abuse and also the sale of sub-standard or counterfeit drugs, thereby threatening public health. There is enough evidence on record to demonstrate how existing pharmacies contribute generously to drug abuse and sale of sub-standard medicine. ‘’ <br> Statement I is incorrect as it is clear from the tone of the author that this is imaginary and not real. <br> Statement II has not been mentioned in the passage. <br> Statement III is correct as can be seen from the passage. Hence, option B is correct.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions. <br><br><br> E-pharmacies, which operate through websites or smartphone apps on the Internet, offer medicines for sale at a discount of at least 20% when compared to traditional pharmacists, with the added convenience of home delivery of medicines to one’s doorstep. For scheduled drugs, patients can submit photographs of prescriptions while placing orders. Despite operating in India for at least four years now, the legal status of these e-pharmacies is not clear because the government is yet to notify into law draft rules that it published in 2018. <br><br> The fiercest opponents of e-pharmacies are trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists. They argue that their livelihoods are threatened by venture capital backed e-pharmacies and that jobs of thousands are on the line. Apart from these obvious arguments, these trade associations also spin imaginary tales of how e-pharmacies will open the door to drug abuse and also the sale of sub-standard or counterfeit drugs, thereby threatening public health. There is enough evidence on record to demonstrate how existing pharmacies contribute generously to drug abuse and sale of sub-standard medicine. There is no reason to suspect that e-pharmacies are going to worsen the situation in anyway. <br><br> The more prudent way of looking at the entry of e-pharmacies is competition and the resultant effect it will have on lowering the price of medicine for Indian patients. Viewed from this perspective, there is virtually no doubt that e-pharmacies should be allowed to operate because the history of India’s trade associations of pharmacists is one of rampant, unabashed cartelisation that has resulted in an artificial inflation of medicine prices. <br><br> This practice of two competitors colluding to fix the sale price and area of operation is called cartelisation, and is illegal under India’s Competition Act. The premise of this law is that a free market is efficient only if all sellers are competing with each other to offer the lowest price to the customer.
Which of the following strengthens the argument for e-pharmacies? <br><br> I. It will lead to more research in pharmaceuticals. <br> II. It will lead to decrease in medicine prices. <br> III. It will lead to an increase in competition.
Explanation: Refer to: ‘The more prudent way of looking at the entry of e-pharmacies is competition and the resultant effect it will have on lowering the price of medicine for Indian patients.’ As per the fragments, only II and III are correct while I has not been mentioned. Hence, option D is correct.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions. <br><br><br> E-pharmacies, which operate through websites or smartphone apps on the Internet, offer medicines for sale at a discount of at least 20% when compared to traditional pharmacists, with the added convenience of home delivery of medicines to one’s doorstep. For scheduled drugs, patients can submit photographs of prescriptions while placing orders. Despite operating in India for at least four years now, the legal status of these e-pharmacies is not clear because the government is yet to notify into law draft rules that it published in 2018. <br><br> The fiercest opponents of e-pharmacies are trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists. They argue that their livelihoods are threatened by venture capital backed e-pharmacies and that jobs of thousands are on the line. Apart from these obvious arguments, these trade associations also spin imaginary tales of how e-pharmacies will open the door to drug abuse and also the sale of sub-standard or counterfeit drugs, thereby threatening public health. There is enough evidence on record to demonstrate how existing pharmacies contribute generously to drug abuse and sale of sub-standard medicine. There is no reason to suspect that e-pharmacies are going to worsen the situation in anyway. <br><br> The more prudent way of looking at the entry of e-pharmacies is competition and the resultant effect it will have on lowering the price of medicine for Indian patients. Viewed from this perspective, there is virtually no doubt that e-pharmacies should be allowed to operate because the history of India’s trade associations of pharmacists is one of rampant, unabashed cartelisation that has resulted in an artificial inflation of medicine prices. <br><br> This practice of two competitors colluding to fix the sale price and area of operation is called cartelisation, and is illegal under India’s Competition Act. The premise of this law is that a free market is efficient only if all sellers are competing with each other to offer the lowest price to the customer.
If two retailers buy a medicine from a wholesaler at Rs 50 and the maximum retail price of the drug is Rs 75, which of the following situation is an example of cartelization? <br><br> I. Both agree to sell at prices suited to their needs. <br> II. Both demarcate the area within which each would operate. <br> III. Both agree to sell the medicine at Rs 75.
Explanation: Cartelization is when sellers enter into an agreement to sell the product at a particular price which would lead to profits for them but losses for the consumer. In this, the sellers also define the are within which they would operate. Both II and III are correct while I is opposite of what is cartelization. Hence, option D is correct.
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the following questions. <br><br><br> E-pharmacies, which operate through websites or smartphone apps on the Internet, offer medicines for sale at a discount of at least 20% when compared to traditional pharmacists, with the added convenience of home delivery of medicines to one’s doorstep. For scheduled drugs, patients can submit photographs of prescriptions while placing orders. Despite operating in India for at least four years now, the legal status of these e-pharmacies is not clear because the government is yet to notify into law draft rules that it published in 2018. <br><br> The fiercest opponents of e-pharmacies are trade associations of existing pharmacists and chemists. They argue that their livelihoods are threatened by venture capital backed e-pharmacies and that jobs of thousands are on the line. Apart from these obvious arguments, these trade associations also spin imaginary tales of how e-pharmacies will open the door to drug abuse and also the sale of sub-standard or counterfeit drugs, thereby threatening public health. There is enough evidence on record to demonstrate how existing pharmacies contribute generously to drug abuse and sale of sub-standard medicine. There is no reason to suspect that e-pharmacies are going to worsen the situation in anyway. <br><br> The more prudent way of looking at the entry of e-pharmacies is competition and the resultant effect it will have on lowering the price of medicine for Indian patients. Viewed from this perspective, there is virtually no doubt that e-pharmacies should be allowed to operate because the history of India’s trade associations of pharmacists is one of rampant, unabashed cartelisation that has resulted in an artificial inflation of medicine prices. <br><br> This practice of two competitors colluding to fix the sale price and area of operation is called cartelisation, and is illegal under India’s Competition Act. The premise of this law is that a free market is efficient only if all sellers are competing with each other to offer the lowest price to the customer.
Which of the following is most similar in meaning unabashed as mentioned in the passage?
Explanation: Disconcerted: not embarrassed, disconcerted, or ashamed. As per this, disconcerted is correct. Hence, option A 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.
