This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 22 April 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.
Defendant
Explanation: Defendant refers to the person against whom a case is brought or who is required to answer a legal charge or claim in court. Among the given options, respondent is the closest in meaning because it refers to the party who answers a petition, complaint, or legal proceeding. Plaintiff, prosecutor, and claimant refer to the side bringing the action, so they are not correct.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Baroque
Explanation: Baroque is used for something highly ornate, decorative, and elaborate in style, especially in art, architecture, or expression. Therefore, elaborate is the best synonym. Plain, simple, and austere express the opposite idea of restraint and lack of ornamentation, so they cannot be correct.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Bemused
Explanation: Bemused means confused, bewildered, or puzzled, usually because something is unclear or surprising. Hence, puzzled is the correct answer. Clear, certain, and sure all indicate confidence or understanding, which is the opposite of the meaning of bemused.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
Betrayal
Explanation: Betrayal means the act of being disloyal, breaking trust, or deceiving someone who depended on your loyalty. Treachery matches this meaning most closely. Loyalty, faithfulness, and fidelity all represent the opposite idea, so they are incorrect.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Ceremonial
Explanation: Ceremonial relates to formal rituals, official occasions, or prescribed ceremony. Its opposite is casual, which suggests informality and absence of ritual or special formality. Formal, ritual, and solemn are all closely associated with ceremonial, so they are not antonyms.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Circumference
Explanation: Circumference refers to the outer boundary or outer edge of a circle, so core is the best opposite among the given choices because it points to the center or innermost part. Perimeter, border, and outline are all related to outer limits, making them similar rather than opposite.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Complementary
Explanation: Complementary describes things that complete, enhance, or go well with each other. Conflicting is the best opposite because it suggests clash, incompatibility, or contradiction. Supplementary, corresponding, and compatible all suggest harmony or support in some form, so they are not antonyms.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
Concentric
Explanation: Concentric means having a common center, usually in the form of circles or rings sharing the same midpoint. Eccentric is the best opposite because it refers to something not sharing the same center or deviating from the center. Coaxial, coinciding, and nested all imply closeness of arrangement rather than opposition.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Highly ornate and elaborate in style.
Explanation: The phrase highly ornate and elaborate in style is best substituted by baroque. The word is often used for art, architecture, or expression that is rich in detail, decoration, and ornament. The other options do not carry this meaning, so baroque is correct.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
The act of being disloyal or breaking someone’s trust.
Explanation: The act of being disloyal or breaking someone’s trust is exactly the meaning of betrayal. It refers to violation of loyalty, faith, or confidence. The other options do not convey this idea, so betrayal is the right one-word substitute.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Relating to or used for formal events, rituals, or ceremonies.
Explanation: Something relating to or used for formal events, rituals, or ceremonies is ceremonial. The word directly refers to the formal and ritualistic nature of an event or practice. The other options are unrelated in meaning, so ceremonial is correct.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
Having a common center; arranged in circles or rings around the same center.
Explanation: Having a common center; arranged in circles or rings around the same center defines concentric. This is the exact meaning used in geometry and general description. The other words do not express the idea of sharing one center, so concentric is correct.
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 chairperson brushed ________ my suggestion
Explanation: The correct phrasal verb is brushed aside, which means dismissed, ignored, or rejected without giving serious attention. None of the other combinations fit the sentence naturally. Therefore, aside is the correct word to complete the blank.
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.
By the government’s ________ some relief from raging price rise can happen anytime in the next six months.
Explanation: The expression by someone’s reckoning means according to someone’s calculation, estimate, or judgment. In the sentence, it means that according to the government’s assessment, relief may come within six months. The other words do not fit this idiomatic structure properly, so reckoning is correct.
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.
Vikas pleaded not guilty in a defamation case against him in a court over ____________ remark about the minister.
Explanation: Purported means alleged or claimed to be true, which fits naturally in the context of a defamation case involving a remark about a minister. Pandemic and endemic are unrelated nouns, porous is unsuitable in meaning, and pleasant does not fit the legal context. Therefore, purported is the best and correct choice.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To make a fuss about
Explanation: The phrase to make a fuss about means to show excessive concern, attention, or agitation over something, often more than the matter deserves. Hence, an excessive display of attention or activity best captures the meaning. The other options express unrelated ideas such as hard work, delight, or strictness.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To sleep with the fishes
Explanation: To sleep with the fishes is an idiom meaning to be dead, especially in an informal or underworld-style expression. It does not refer to peaceful sleep, dreaminess, or excuse-making. Therefore, option (c) is the correct meaning of the phrase.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
Get someone’s goat
Explanation: Get someone’s goat means to irritate, annoy, or provoke someone. It is commonly used when a person becomes bothered by another’s behavior or words. The other options do not match the idiomatic meaning, so to annoy someone is correct.
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.
you may not know it (1)/ but this engine is (2)/ claimed to have twice (3)/ as powerful as the previous one (4)/No error (5)
Explanation: The error lies in the phrase claimed to have twice, because the sentence should read claimed to be twice as powerful as the previous one or claimed to have twice the power of the previous one. Therefore, the incorrect segment is option (d). The original answer (c) was wrong because you may not know it is grammatically fine.
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.
The results of the survey were fairly disappointing.
Explanation: The sentence The results of the survey were fairly disappointing is grammatically correct. The adverb fairly can naturally modify an adjective like disappointing and means moderately or rather in this context. So there is no grammatical error in the sentence, and the earlier answer marking option (b) was incorrect.
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.
The young child singed a very sweet song for the audience.
Explanation: The word singed is incorrect in the sentence because singed means slightly burned, which does not fit the context. The correct past tense of sing is sang. Therefore, the error is in option (a), and it should be replaced conceptually by sang.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words in the passage are printed in bold to help you to locate them easily while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> At one time it would have been impossible to imagine the integration of different religious thoughts, ideas and ideals. That is because of the closed society, the lack of any communication or interdependence on other nations. People were happy and content amongst themselves; they did not need any more. The physical distance and cultural barriers prevented any exchange of thought and beliefs. But such is not the case today. Today, the world has become a much smaller place, thanks to the adventures and miracles of science. Foreign nations have become our next-door neighbors. Mingling of population is bringing about an interchange of thought. We are slowly realizing that the world is a single cooperative group1. Other religions have become forces with which we have to reckon and we are seeking for ways and means by which we can live together in peace and harmony. <br><br> We cannot have religious unity and peace so long as we assert that we are in possession of the light and all others are grouping in the darkness That very assertion is a challenge to a fight. The political ideal of the world is not so much a single empire with a homogeneous, Civilization and single communal will a brotherhood of free nations differing profoundly in life and mind, habits and institutions, existing side by side in peace and order, harmony and cooperation and each contributing to the world its own unique and specific best, which is irreducible to , the terms of the others. The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, and the nationalism of , the nineteenth are combined in our ideal of a world commonwealth, which allows every branch of the human family to find freedom, security and selfrealization in the larger life of man , kind. I see no hope for the religious future of the world, if this ideal is not extended to the religious, sphere also?, When two or three different systems claim that they contain the revelation of the very core and center of truth and the acceptance of it is the exclusive pathway to heaven, conflicts are inevitable. In such conflicts one religion will not, allow others to steal a march over it and no one can gain ascendancy until the world is reduced to dust and ashes. To obliterate every other religion than, ones is a sort of Bolshevism in religion which we must try to prevent. <br><br> We can do so only if we accept something like the Indian solution, which seeks the unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest. Let us believe in a unity of spirit and not of organization, a unity which secures ample liberty not only for every individual but for every type of organized life which has proved itself effective. For almost all historical forms of life and thought can claim the sanction of experience and so the authority of God. The world would be a much poorer thing if one creed absorbed the rest. God wills a rich harmony and not a colorless uniformity. The comprehensive and synthetic spirit of Indianism had made it a mighty forest with a thousand waving aims each fulfilling its function and all directed by the spirit of God. Each thing in its place and all associated in the divine concert making with their various voices and even dissonance, as Heraclitus would say, the most exquisite harmony should be our ideal.
According to the passage, the political ideal of the contemporary world is toll create a single empire with a homogeneous civilization
Explanation: The passage says that the political ideal is not a single empire with one homogeneous civilization, but rather a world commonwealth or brotherhood of free nations living side by side while preserving their distinct identities. Hence, option (a) is the best answer. Option (e) is wrong because the passage does not support all the listed ideas, especially not one religion or total religious unity.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words in the passage are printed in bold to help you to locate them easily while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> At one time it would have been impossible to imagine the integration of different religious thoughts, ideas and ideals. That is because of the closed society, the lack of any communication or interdependence on other nations. People were happy and content amongst themselves; they did not need any more. The physical distance and cultural barriers prevented any exchange of thought and beliefs. But such is not the case today. Today, the world has become a much smaller place, thanks to the adventures and miracles of science. Foreign nations have become our next-door neighbors. Mingling of population is bringing about an interchange of thought. We are slowly realizing that the world is a single cooperative group1. Other religions have become forces with which we have to reckon and we are seeking for ways and means by which we can live together in peace and harmony. <br><br> We cannot have religious unity and peace so long as we assert that we are in possession of the light and all others are grouping in the darkness That very assertion is a challenge to a fight. The political ideal of the world is not so much a single empire with a homogeneous, Civilization and single communal will a brotherhood of free nations differing profoundly in life and mind, habits and institutions, existing side by side in peace and order, harmony and cooperation and each contributing to the world its own unique and specific best, which is irreducible to , the terms of the others. The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, and the nationalism of , the nineteenth are combined in our ideal of a world commonwealth, which allows every branch of the human family to find freedom, security and selfrealization in the larger life of man , kind. I see no hope for the religious future of the world, if this ideal is not extended to the religious, sphere also?, When two or three different systems claim that they contain the revelation of the very core and center of truth and the acceptance of it is the exclusive pathway to heaven, conflicts are inevitable. In such conflicts one religion will not, allow others to steal a march over it and no one can gain ascendancy until the world is reduced to dust and ashes. To obliterate every other religion than, ones is a sort of Bolshevism in religion which we must try to prevent. <br><br> We can do so only if we accept something like the Indian solution, which seeks the unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest. Let us believe in a unity of spirit and not of organization, a unity which secures ample liberty not only for every individual but for every type of organized life which has proved itself effective. For almost all historical forms of life and thought can claim the sanction of experience and so the authority of God. The world would be a much poorer thing if one creed absorbed the rest. God wills a rich harmony and not a colorless uniformity. The comprehensive and synthetic spirit of Indianism had made it a mighty forest with a thousand waving aims each fulfilling its function and all directed by the spirit of God. Each thing in its place and all associated in the divine concert making with their various voices and even dissonance, as Heraclitus would say, the most exquisite harmony should be our ideal.
According to the passage, the world would be a much poorer thing if
Explanation: The passage clearly states that the world would be poorer if one creed absorbed the rest. This means diversity of religious thought enriches the world, while domination by one religion would diminish it. Therefore, option (c) correctly reflects the author’s idea.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words in the passage are printed in bold to help you to locate them easily while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> At one time it would have been impossible to imagine the integration of different religious thoughts, ideas and ideals. That is because of the closed society, the lack of any communication or interdependence on other nations. People were happy and content amongst themselves; they did not need any more. The physical distance and cultural barriers prevented any exchange of thought and beliefs. But such is not the case today. Today, the world has become a much smaller place, thanks to the adventures and miracles of science. Foreign nations have become our next-door neighbors. Mingling of population is bringing about an interchange of thought. We are slowly realizing that the world is a single cooperative group1. Other religions have become forces with which we have to reckon and we are seeking for ways and means by which we can live together in peace and harmony. <br><br> We cannot have religious unity and peace so long as we assert that we are in possession of the light and all others are grouping in the darkness That very assertion is a challenge to a fight. The political ideal of the world is not so much a single empire with a homogeneous, Civilization and single communal will a brotherhood of free nations differing profoundly in life and mind, habits and institutions, existing side by side in peace and order, harmony and cooperation and each contributing to the world its own unique and specific best, which is irreducible to , the terms of the others. The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, and the nationalism of , the nineteenth are combined in our ideal of a world commonwealth, which allows every branch of the human family to find freedom, security and selfrealization in the larger life of man , kind. I see no hope for the religious future of the world, if this ideal is not extended to the religious, sphere also?, When two or three different systems claim that they contain the revelation of the very core and center of truth and the acceptance of it is the exclusive pathway to heaven, conflicts are inevitable. In such conflicts one religion will not, allow others to steal a march over it and no one can gain ascendancy until the world is reduced to dust and ashes. To obliterate every other religion than, ones is a sort of Bolshevism in religion which we must try to prevent. <br><br> We can do so only if we accept something like the Indian solution, which seeks the unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest. Let us believe in a unity of spirit and not of organization, a unity which secures ample liberty not only for every individual but for every type of organized life which has proved itself effective. For almost all historical forms of life and thought can claim the sanction of experience and so the authority of God. The world would be a much poorer thing if one creed absorbed the rest. God wills a rich harmony and not a colorless uniformity. The comprehensive and synthetic spirit of Indianism had made it a mighty forest with a thousand waving aims each fulfilling its function and all directed by the spirit of God. Each thing in its place and all associated in the divine concert making with their various voices and even dissonance, as Heraclitus would say, the most exquisite harmony should be our ideal.
Which of the following statements is/are stated or implied in the above passage? <br><br> A. People today are happy and content amongst themselves. <br> B. There is no freedom and security in the religious sphere in the world today. <br> C. Indianism is directed by the spirit of God.
Explanation: Statement A is false because the passage says people were happy and content among themselves in the past, not today. Statement B is too absolute and is not directly stated in that form. Statement C is correct because the passage explicitly says that Indianism is directed by the spirit of God. Therefore, only statement C is correct.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words in the passage are printed in bold to help you to locate them easily while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> At one time it would have been impossible to imagine the integration of different religious thoughts, ideas and ideals. That is because of the closed society, the lack of any communication or interdependence on other nations. People were happy and content amongst themselves; they did not need any more. The physical distance and cultural barriers prevented any exchange of thought and beliefs. But such is not the case today. Today, the world has become a much smaller place, thanks to the adventures and miracles of science. Foreign nations have become our next-door neighbors. Mingling of population is bringing about an interchange of thought. We are slowly realizing that the world is a single cooperative group1. Other religions have become forces with which we have to reckon and we are seeking for ways and means by which we can live together in peace and harmony. <br><br> We cannot have religious unity and peace so long as we assert that we are in possession of the light and all others are grouping in the darkness That very assertion is a challenge to a fight. The political ideal of the world is not so much a single empire with a homogeneous, Civilization and single communal will a brotherhood of free nations differing profoundly in life and mind, habits and institutions, existing side by side in peace and order, harmony and cooperation and each contributing to the world its own unique and specific best, which is irreducible to , the terms of the others. The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, and the nationalism of , the nineteenth are combined in our ideal of a world commonwealth, which allows every branch of the human family to find freedom, security and selfrealization in the larger life of man , kind. I see no hope for the religious future of the world, if this ideal is not extended to the religious, sphere also?, When two or three different systems claim that they contain the revelation of the very core and center of truth and the acceptance of it is the exclusive pathway to heaven, conflicts are inevitable. In such conflicts one religion will not, allow others to steal a march over it and no one can gain ascendancy until the world is reduced to dust and ashes. To obliterate every other religion than, ones is a sort of Bolshevism in religion which we must try to prevent. <br><br> We can do so only if we accept something like the Indian solution, which seeks the unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest. Let us believe in a unity of spirit and not of organization, a unity which secures ample liberty not only for every individual but for every type of organized life which has proved itself effective. For almost all historical forms of life and thought can claim the sanction of experience and so the authority of God. The world would be a much poorer thing if one creed absorbed the rest. God wills a rich harmony and not a colorless uniformity. The comprehensive and synthetic spirit of Indianism had made it a mighty forest with a thousand waving aims each fulfilling its function and all directed by the spirit of God. Each thing in its place and all associated in the divine concert making with their various voices and even dissonance, as Heraclitus would say, the most exquisite harmony should be our ideal.
According to the passage, what is Bolshevism in the religion ?
Explanation: The passage defines Bolshevism in religion as the attempt to obliterate every other religion except one’s own. That idea is best captured by rigid dogmatism and extreme exclusivism in religion. It does not mean ridicule, reform, or acceptance of other beliefs. Therefore, option (d) is correct.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words in the passage are printed in bold to help you to locate them easily while answering some of the questions. <br><br><br> At one time it would have been impossible to imagine the integration of different religious thoughts, ideas and ideals. That is because of the closed society, the lack of any communication or interdependence on other nations. People were happy and content amongst themselves; they did not need any more. The physical distance and cultural barriers prevented any exchange of thought and beliefs. But such is not the case today. Today, the world has become a much smaller place, thanks to the adventures and miracles of science. Foreign nations have become our next-door neighbors. Mingling of population is bringing about an interchange of thought. We are slowly realizing that the world is a single cooperative group1. Other religions have become forces with which we have to reckon and we are seeking for ways and means by which we can live together in peace and harmony. <br><br> We cannot have religious unity and peace so long as we assert that we are in possession of the light and all others are grouping in the darkness That very assertion is a challenge to a fight. The political ideal of the world is not so much a single empire with a homogeneous, Civilization and single communal will a brotherhood of free nations differing profoundly in life and mind, habits and institutions, existing side by side in peace and order, harmony and cooperation and each contributing to the world its own unique and specific best, which is irreducible to , the terms of the others. The cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century, and the nationalism of , the nineteenth are combined in our ideal of a world commonwealth, which allows every branch of the human family to find freedom, security and selfrealization in the larger life of man , kind. I see no hope for the religious future of the world, if this ideal is not extended to the religious, sphere also?, When two or three different systems claim that they contain the revelation of the very core and center of truth and the acceptance of it is the exclusive pathway to heaven, conflicts are inevitable. In such conflicts one religion will not, allow others to steal a march over it and no one can gain ascendancy until the world is reduced to dust and ashes. To obliterate every other religion than, ones is a sort of Bolshevism in religion which we must try to prevent. <br><br> We can do so only if we accept something like the Indian solution, which seeks the unity of religion not in a common creed but in a common quest. Let us believe in a unity of spirit and not of organization, a unity which secures ample liberty not only for every individual but for every type of organized life which has proved itself effective. For almost all historical forms of life and thought can claim the sanction of experience and so the authority of God. The world would be a much poorer thing if one creed absorbed the rest. God wills a rich harmony and not a colorless uniformity. The comprehensive and synthetic spirit of Indianism had made it a mighty forest with a thousand waving aims each fulfilling its function and all directed by the spirit of God. Each thing in its place and all associated in the divine concert making with their various voices and even dissonance, as Heraclitus would say, the most exquisite harmony should be our ideal.
According to the passage, the conflict of religions is inevitable mainly because each religion
Explanation: The passage states that religious conflict becomes inevitable when different systems claim that they alone contain the central truth and that accepting them is the exclusive path to salvation. This directly matches option (d), which says each religion claims to possess a complete and exclusive understanding of truth. Option (a) is only a consequence of that attitude, not the main reason.
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.
