This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 11 March 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.
Acquisitive
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Disputatious
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Embryonic
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Fainthearted
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Foolhardy
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Headstrong
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Ponderous
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Unwavering
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Eager to acquire and possess things, especially wealth or property.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
In an early stage of development; not yet fully developed.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Determined to have one’s own way; stubborn and not willing to listen to advice.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Slow and heavy in movement, action, or speech; dull because of being too serious or lengthy.
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 rocket ________the target and did not cause any casualty.
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 soldiers received a military ______ to inspect all their vehicles before travelling.
Explanation: Mandate is a command or authoritative instruction.
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.
His father _____ him up in a construction business.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To go down like a lead balloon
Explanation: ‘To go down like a lead balloon’ — A speech, proposal, or joke that is poorly received.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Get your walking papers
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To be on cloud nine
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.
Look at what (A)/ I am doing (B)/ and do like I do. (C)/ No error (D)
Explanation: Here, and do what/as I do is the right usage.
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.
Every house should 1)/ have the device as it 2)/ protects people from a 3)/ common household disaster . 4)/ No error 5).
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.
Were I the president (1)/ I would award (2)/ you a title. (3)/ No error (4)
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> Amartya Sen wrote about the Indian tradition of skepticism and heterodoxy of opinion that led to high levels of intellectual argument. The power sector in India is a victim of this tradition at its worst. Instead of forcefully communicating, supporting and honestly and firmly implementing policies, people just debate them. It is argued that central undertakings produce power at lower tariffs and must therefore build most of the required extra capacities. This is a delusion. They no longer have access to low-cost government funds. <br><br> Uncertainty about payment remains a reason for the hesitation of private investment. They had to sell only to SEBs (State Electricity Boards). SEB balance sheets are cleaner after the securitisation of the Rs 40,000 crore or so owed by SEBs to central government undertakings, now shown as debt instruments. But state governments have not implemented agreed plans to ensure repayment when due. The current annual losses of around Rs 28,000 crore make repayment highly uncertain. The central undertakings that are their main suppliers have payment security because the government will come to their help. Private enterprises do not have such assurance and are concerned about payment security, that must be resolved. <br><br> By the late 1990s, improving the SEB finances was recognised as fundamental to power reform. Unbundling SEBs, working under corporate discipline and even privatisation and not vertically integrated state enterprises, are necessary for efficient and financially viable electricity enterprises. Since government will not distance itself from managing them, privatising is an option. The Delhi model has worked. But it receives no public support. <br><br> The Electricity Act 2003, the APRDP (Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme) with its incentives and penalties, and the creation of independent regulatory commissions, were the means to bring about reforms to improve financial viability of power sector. Implementation has been halfhearted and results disappointing. The concurrent nature of electricity in the Constitution impedes power sector improvement. States are more responsive to populist pressures than the central government, and less inclined to take drastic action against electricity thieves. <br><br> Captive power would add significantly to capacity. However, captive generation, three years after the Act enabled it, has added little to capacity because rules for open access were delayed. Redefined captive generation avoids state vetoes on purchase or sale of electricity except to state electricity enterprises. Mandating open access on state-owned wires to power regardless of ownership and customer would encourage electricity trading. The Act recognised electricity trading as a separate activity. A surcharge on transmission charges will pay for cross-subsidies. These were to be eliminated in time. Rules for open access and the quantum of surcharge by each state commission (under broad principles defined by the central commission) have yet to be announced by some. The few who have announced the surcharge have kept it so high that no trading can take place.
The author thinks it appropriate to:
Explanation: The author wants us to stop debating and implement policies.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> Amartya Sen wrote about the Indian tradition of skepticism and heterodoxy of opinion that led to high levels of intellectual argument. The power sector in India is a victim of this tradition at its worst. Instead of forcefully communicating, supporting and honestly and firmly implementing policies, people just debate them. It is argued that central undertakings produce power at lower tariffs and must therefore build most of the required extra capacities. This is a delusion. They no longer have access to low-cost government funds. <br><br> Uncertainty about payment remains a reason for the hesitation of private investment. They had to sell only to SEBs (State Electricity Boards). SEB balance sheets are cleaner after the securitisation of the Rs 40,000 crore or so owed by SEBs to central government undertakings, now shown as debt instruments. But state governments have not implemented agreed plans to ensure repayment when due. The current annual losses of around Rs 28,000 crore make repayment highly uncertain. The central undertakings that are their main suppliers have payment security because the government will come to their help. Private enterprises do not have such assurance and are concerned about payment security, that must be resolved. <br><br> By the late 1990s, improving the SEB finances was recognised as fundamental to power reform. Unbundling SEBs, working under corporate discipline and even privatisation and not vertically integrated state enterprises, are necessary for efficient and financially viable electricity enterprises. Since government will not distance itself from managing them, privatising is an option. The Delhi model has worked. But it receives no public support. <br><br> The Electricity Act 2003, the APRDP (Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme) with its incentives and penalties, and the creation of independent regulatory commissions, were the means to bring about reforms to improve financial viability of power sector. Implementation has been halfhearted and results disappointing. The concurrent nature of electricity in the Constitution impedes power sector improvement. States are more responsive to populist pressures than the central government, and less inclined to take drastic action against electricity thieves. <br><br> Captive power would add significantly to capacity. However, captive generation, three years after the Act enabled it, has added little to capacity because rules for open access were delayed. Redefined captive generation avoids state vetoes on purchase or sale of electricity except to state electricity enterprises. Mandating open access on state-owned wires to power regardless of ownership and customer would encourage electricity trading. The Act recognised electricity trading as a separate activity. A surcharge on transmission charges will pay for cross-subsidies. These were to be eliminated in time. Rules for open access and the quantum of surcharge by each state commission (under broad principles defined by the central commission) have yet to be announced by some. The few who have announced the surcharge have kept it so high that no trading can take place.
Why are the central undertakings not capable of generating power at low cost?
Explanation: Stated in the first paragraph.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> Amartya Sen wrote about the Indian tradition of skepticism and heterodoxy of opinion that led to high levels of intellectual argument. The power sector in India is a victim of this tradition at its worst. Instead of forcefully communicating, supporting and honestly and firmly implementing policies, people just debate them. It is argued that central undertakings produce power at lower tariffs and must therefore build most of the required extra capacities. This is a delusion. They no longer have access to low-cost government funds. <br><br> Uncertainty about payment remains a reason for the hesitation of private investment. They had to sell only to SEBs (State Electricity Boards). SEB balance sheets are cleaner after the securitisation of the Rs 40,000 crore or so owed by SEBs to central government undertakings, now shown as debt instruments. But state governments have not implemented agreed plans to ensure repayment when due. The current annual losses of around Rs 28,000 crore make repayment highly uncertain. The central undertakings that are their main suppliers have payment security because the government will come to their help. Private enterprises do not have such assurance and are concerned about payment security, that must be resolved. <br><br> By the late 1990s, improving the SEB finances was recognised as fundamental to power reform. Unbundling SEBs, working under corporate discipline and even privatisation and not vertically integrated state enterprises, are necessary for efficient and financially viable electricity enterprises. Since government will not distance itself from managing them, privatising is an option. The Delhi model has worked. But it receives no public support. <br><br> The Electricity Act 2003, the APRDP (Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme) with its incentives and penalties, and the creation of independent regulatory commissions, were the means to bring about reforms to improve financial viability of power sector. Implementation has been halfhearted and results disappointing. The concurrent nature of electricity in the Constitution impedes power sector improvement. States are more responsive to populist pressures than the central government, and less inclined to take drastic action against electricity thieves. <br><br> Captive power would add significantly to capacity. However, captive generation, three years after the Act enabled it, has added little to capacity because rules for open access were delayed. Redefined captive generation avoids state vetoes on purchase or sale of electricity except to state electricity enterprises. Mandating open access on state-owned wires to power regardless of ownership and customer would encourage electricity trading. The Act recognised electricity trading as a separate activity. A surcharge on transmission charges will pay for cross-subsidies. These were to be eliminated in time. Rules for open access and the quantum of surcharge by each state commission (under broad principles defined by the central commission) have yet to be announced by some. The few who have announced the surcharge have kept it so high that no trading can take place.
Which of the following is the reason for apathy of private investors in power sector?
Explanation: Uncertainty about payment is mentioned, hence option (d).
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> Amartya Sen wrote about the Indian tradition of skepticism and heterodoxy of opinion that led to high levels of intellectual argument. The power sector in India is a victim of this tradition at its worst. Instead of forcefully communicating, supporting and honestly and firmly implementing policies, people just debate them. It is argued that central undertakings produce power at lower tariffs and must therefore build most of the required extra capacities. This is a delusion. They no longer have access to low-cost government funds. <br><br> Uncertainty about payment remains a reason for the hesitation of private investment. They had to sell only to SEBs (State Electricity Boards). SEB balance sheets are cleaner after the securitisation of the Rs 40,000 crore or so owed by SEBs to central government undertakings, now shown as debt instruments. But state governments have not implemented agreed plans to ensure repayment when due. The current annual losses of around Rs 28,000 crore make repayment highly uncertain. The central undertakings that are their main suppliers have payment security because the government will come to their help. Private enterprises do not have such assurance and are concerned about payment security, that must be resolved. <br><br> By the late 1990s, improving the SEB finances was recognised as fundamental to power reform. Unbundling SEBs, working under corporate discipline and even privatisation and not vertically integrated state enterprises, are necessary for efficient and financially viable electricity enterprises. Since government will not distance itself from managing them, privatising is an option. The Delhi model has worked. But it receives no public support. <br><br> The Electricity Act 2003, the APRDP (Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme) with its incentives and penalties, and the creation of independent regulatory commissions, were the means to bring about reforms to improve financial viability of power sector. Implementation has been halfhearted and results disappointing. The concurrent nature of electricity in the Constitution impedes power sector improvement. States are more responsive to populist pressures than the central government, and less inclined to take drastic action against electricity thieves. <br><br> Captive power would add significantly to capacity. However, captive generation, three years after the Act enabled it, has added little to capacity because rules for open access were delayed. Redefined captive generation avoids state vetoes on purchase or sale of electricity except to state electricity enterprises. Mandating open access on state-owned wires to power regardless of ownership and customer would encourage electricity trading. The Act recognised electricity trading as a separate activity. A surcharge on transmission charges will pay for cross-subsidies. These were to be eliminated in time. Rules for open access and the quantum of surcharge by each state commission (under broad principles defined by the central commission) have yet to be announced by some. The few who have announced the surcharge have kept it so high that no trading can take place.
What was the serious omission on the part of the State Government?
Explanation: Refer to the second paragraph. State governments have not implemented agreed plans to ensure repayment when due...
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> Amartya Sen wrote about the Indian tradition of skepticism and heterodoxy of opinion that led to high levels of intellectual argument. The power sector in India is a victim of this tradition at its worst. Instead of forcefully communicating, supporting and honestly and firmly implementing policies, people just debate them. It is argued that central undertakings produce power at lower tariffs and must therefore build most of the required extra capacities. This is a delusion. They no longer have access to low-cost government funds. <br><br> Uncertainty about payment remains a reason for the hesitation of private investment. They had to sell only to SEBs (State Electricity Boards). SEB balance sheets are cleaner after the securitisation of the Rs 40,000 crore or so owed by SEBs to central government undertakings, now shown as debt instruments. But state governments have not implemented agreed plans to ensure repayment when due. The current annual losses of around Rs 28,000 crore make repayment highly uncertain. The central undertakings that are their main suppliers have payment security because the government will come to their help. Private enterprises do not have such assurance and are concerned about payment security, that must be resolved. <br><br> By the late 1990s, improving the SEB finances was recognised as fundamental to power reform. Unbundling SEBs, working under corporate discipline and even privatisation and not vertically integrated state enterprises, are necessary for efficient and financially viable electricity enterprises. Since government will not distance itself from managing them, privatising is an option. The Delhi model has worked. But it receives no public support. <br><br> The Electricity Act 2003, the APRDP (Accelerated Power Reform and Development Programme) with its incentives and penalties, and the creation of independent regulatory commissions, were the means to bring about reforms to improve financial viability of power sector. Implementation has been halfhearted and results disappointing. The concurrent nature of electricity in the Constitution impedes power sector improvement. States are more responsive to populist pressures than the central government, and less inclined to take drastic action against electricity thieves. <br><br> Captive power would add significantly to capacity. However, captive generation, three years after the Act enabled it, has added little to capacity because rules for open access were delayed. Redefined captive generation avoids state vetoes on purchase or sale of electricity except to state electricity enterprises. Mandating open access on state-owned wires to power regardless of ownership and customer would encourage electricity trading. The Act recognised electricity trading as a separate activity. A surcharge on transmission charges will pay for cross-subsidies. These were to be eliminated in time. Rules for open access and the quantum of surcharge by each state commission (under broad principles defined by the central commission) have yet to be announced by some. The few who have announced the surcharge have kept it so high that no trading can take place.
Which of the following is/are considered necessary for improving the performance of electricity enterprises? <br><br> A. Corporate work culture<br> B. Privatisation <br> C. Properly integrated state enterprises
Explanation: All the factors are mentioned in the passage.
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.
