This is the Vocab24 daily quiz of 6 August 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.
ROCOCO
Explanation: Rococo describes something excessively ornate, elaborate, or decorative; therefore, flamboyant is the closest synonym. Austere suggests severe simplicity and is an antonym of rococo, while uniform means lacking variety and sordid refers to something dirty or disreputable.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
PARROT
Explanation: As a verb, parrot means to repeat another person’s words or ideas without properly understanding them. Echo most accurately conveys this sense of mechanical repetition. Interpret, improvise, and originate involve independent understanding or creation and are therefore contrary to the meaning of parrot.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
VOLLEY
Explanation: A volley is a large number of shots, objects, questions, or remarks released rapidly or simultaneously. Barrage expresses the same idea of a concentrated and rapid outpouring. Trickle suggests a slow and limited flow, while restraint and pause indicate limitation or interruption.
Out of the given alternatives select the alternative which best expresses the meaning of given word.
MUDSLINGING
Explanation: Mudslinging refers to malicious accusations or personal attacks intended to damage someone’s reputation. Vilification is the closest synonym because it means abusive or defamatory criticism. Vindication, commendation, and appreciation are favourable actions and therefore do not express the meaning of mudslinging.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
SEEDY
Explanation: Seedy describes something shabby, dirty, socially disreputable, or suspicious. Respectable is its most precise opposite because it suggests social acceptability and a good reputation. Shabby, sordid, and sleazy reinforce rather than oppose the meaning of seedy.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
STONEWALL
Explanation: Stonewall means to delay or obstruct a request, discussion, or investigation by refusing to cooperate. Facilitate means to make a process easier and is therefore the best antonym. Obstruct, hinder, and stall are all closely related to the meaning of stonewall.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
PIGHEADED
Explanation: Pigheaded means unreasonably stubborn and unwilling to change one’s opinion. Open-minded is the clearest opposite because an open-minded person is willing to consider different views. Inflexible, obstinate, and headstrong are synonyms of pigheaded rather than antonyms.
Out of the given alternatives select the word opposite in meaning to the given word.
AVENGE
Explanation: Avenge means to punish a person responsible for a wrong or injury. Forgive is its most appropriate opposite because it involves giving up resentment or the desire for retaliation. Requite, retaliate, and vindicate are connected with responding to or redressing a wrong.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A wide and varied collection containing many different kinds of things
Explanation: Smorgasbord means a broad and varied collection or assortment. A volley is a rapid outpouring, mudslinging involves malicious accusations, rococo describes excessive decoration, and seedy refers to something shabby or disreputable.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
A person who performs menial duties and behaves submissively toward someone powerful
Explanation: A flunky is a submissive subordinate, lackey, servant, or toady who performs menial tasks for a powerful person. An avenger punishes a wrongdoer, a mudslinger makes malicious accusations, a stonewaller obstructs cooperation, and a parrot may refer to one who merely repeats another’s words.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To delay or obstruct an investigation by refusing to cooperate
Explanation: Stonewall precisely means to delay, obstruct, or block a discussion, request, or investigation through non-cooperation. Parrot means to repeat without understanding, avenge means to punish for a wrong, volley refers to releasing many things rapidly, and mudsling means to make malicious accusations.
Out of given alternatives, choose the word which can be substituted for the given words/ sentence.
To repeat another person’s words or ideas without understanding them
Explanation: To parrot something is to repeat it mechanically without genuine comprehension. Avenge concerns punishment for wrongdoing, stonewall means to obstruct, mudsling means to attack a reputation maliciously, and volley does not express mechanical repetition.
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.
Instead of answering the auditors directly, the company attempted to ______ the inquiry by withholding essential records.
Explanation: Stonewall fits the context because the company deliberately obstructed the inquiry by refusing to provide important records. Facilitate would mean helping the inquiry, avenge concerns retaliation, parrot means mechanical repetition, and volley refers to a rapid release of objects or remarks.
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 exhibition presented a ______ of architectural designs, ranging from austere structures to highly decorative interiors.
Explanation: Smorgasbord appropriately describes a varied collection of architectural designs. Trickle indicates a slow and limited flow, restraint suggests limitation, flunky refers to a submissive subordinate, and vindication means clearing someone from blame or criticism.
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 spokesperson faced a ______ of closely framed questions concerning the missing documents.
Explanation: A volley of questions means a large number of questions delivered rapidly or almost simultaneously. Scarcity, uniformity, and limitation suggest restriction, while pause indicates an interruption rather than an intense sequence of questioning.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To throw verbal mud at someone
Explanation: The phrase represents mudslinging, which means making malicious accusations or personal attacks to damage someone’s reputation. It does not involve praise, faithful repetition, or cooperation; instead, it suggests an attempt to make another person appear disreputable.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To build a stone wall before every question
Explanation: The phrase conveys the idea of stonewalling, or deliberately blocking discussion and refusing to cooperate. It does not refer to providing several answers, decorating an argument, or showing flexibility; its essential sense is obstruction.
Out of given alternatives select the option which best expresses the meaning of given idiom/ phrase.
To repeat like a parrot
Explanation: The phrase means to repeat another person’s words mechanically without understanding their significance. Originate, interpret, and improvise all involve independent thought or comprehension and are therefore inconsistent with the phrase.
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 official continued stonewall the investigation despite repeated requests for the relevant documents.
Explanation: The verb continued is correctly followed by a gerund in this construction, so continued stonewalling the investigation is grammatically appropriate. Option (a) lacks the required structure after continued, while option (c) incorrectly uses the past form stonewalled after to.
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 student parroted the explanation without understood the principle on which it was based.
Explanation: The preposition without must be followed by a noun or gerund; therefore, without understanding is correct. Option (b) retains the incorrect form understood, while option (c) creates disagreement between the simple present parrot and the past-tense context of the sentence.
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 manager was surrounded by flunkies who never questioned his decisions.
Explanation: The sentence is grammatically correct. The plural subject flunkies agrees with questioned, and the simple past tense is consistent with was surrounded. Option (a) unnecessarily changes the tense, option (b) is structurally incorrect, and option (c) creates subject-verb disagreement.
DIRECTIONS: 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> The committee had been established to examine allegations concerning a public contract, but its first meeting produced little clarity. The chief official arrived with several <strong> flunkies </strong> who praised every statement he made and discouraged independent questioning. When members requested the original records, he attempted to <strong> stonewall </strong> the inquiry by claiming that the documents were unavailable. His answers were not merely incomplete; they appeared to <strong> parrot </strong> a prepared explanation that had already been circulated among his subordinates. <br><br> The committee members then directed a <strong> volley </strong> of precise questions at him. Rather than respond to the evidence, the official accused his critics of personal hostility. The discussion soon descended into <strong>mudslinging</strong>, with each accusation drawing attention away from the missing documents. One member, however, refused to participate in the personal attacks. She observed that an investigation could neither establish guilt nor provide <strong> vindication </strong> unless all parties cooperated and the evidence was examined objectively. <br><br> Outside the meeting hall, public discussion was equally divided. Some commentators offered a <strong> smorgasbord </strong> of explanations, ranging from administrative negligence to deliberate obstruction. Others simply repeated rumours. The situation demonstrated that an elaborate or <strong> rococo </strong> explanation was not necessarily a convincing one. Excessive detail could conceal the absence of substance just as effectively as silence. <br><br> The committee eventually warned that a <strong>pigheaded</strong> refusal to cooperate would weaken public confidence. It also rejected the argument that officials should attempt to <strong> avenge </strong> criticism by attacking those who asked difficult questions. Accountability, the committee concluded, required evidence, openness, and the willingness to reconsider one’s position.
Why did the official’s conduct weaken the inquiry?
Explanation: The passage states that the official tried to stonewall the inquiry by withholding records and appeared to parrot a prepared explanation. These actions prevented the committee from examining evidence properly. The other options either contradict the passage or describe conduct associated with cooperation and openness.
DIRECTIONS: 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> The committee had been established to examine allegations concerning a public contract, but its first meeting produced little clarity. The chief official arrived with several <strong> flunkies </strong> who praised every statement he made and discouraged independent questioning. When members requested the original records, he attempted to <strong> stonewall </strong> the inquiry by claiming that the documents were unavailable. His answers were not merely incomplete; they appeared to <strong> parrot </strong> a prepared explanation that had already been circulated among his subordinates. <br><br> The committee members then directed a <strong> volley </strong> of precise questions at him. Rather than respond to the evidence, the official accused his critics of personal hostility. The discussion soon descended into <strong>mudslinging</strong>, with each accusation drawing attention away from the missing documents. One member, however, refused to participate in the personal attacks. She observed that an investigation could neither establish guilt nor provide <strong> vindication </strong> unless all parties cooperated and the evidence was examined objectively. <br><br> Outside the meeting hall, public discussion was equally divided. Some commentators offered a <strong> smorgasbord </strong> of explanations, ranging from administrative negligence to deliberate obstruction. Others simply repeated rumours. The situation demonstrated that an elaborate or <strong> rococo </strong> explanation was not necessarily a convincing one. Excessive detail could conceal the absence of substance just as effectively as silence. <br><br> The committee eventually warned that a <strong>pigheaded</strong> refusal to cooperate would weaken public confidence. It also rejected the argument that officials should attempt to <strong> avenge </strong> criticism by attacking those who asked difficult questions. Accountability, the committee concluded, required evidence, openness, and the willingness to reconsider one’s position.
The word rococo in the passage most nearly suggests an explanation that is:
Explanation: In the passage, rococo describes an explanation that is excessively elaborate or decorative but not necessarily convincing. Plain and restrained is the opposite sense, while socially disreputable, stubborn, and rapidly delivered correspond to other vocabulary ideas and do not fit the context.
DIRECTIONS: 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> The committee had been established to examine allegations concerning a public contract, but its first meeting produced little clarity. The chief official arrived with several <strong> flunkies </strong> who praised every statement he made and discouraged independent questioning. When members requested the original records, he attempted to <strong> stonewall </strong> the inquiry by claiming that the documents were unavailable. His answers were not merely incomplete; they appeared to <strong> parrot </strong> a prepared explanation that had already been circulated among his subordinates. <br><br> The committee members then directed a <strong> volley </strong> of precise questions at him. Rather than respond to the evidence, the official accused his critics of personal hostility. The discussion soon descended into <strong>mudslinging</strong>, with each accusation drawing attention away from the missing documents. One member, however, refused to participate in the personal attacks. She observed that an investigation could neither establish guilt nor provide <strong> vindication </strong> unless all parties cooperated and the evidence was examined objectively. <br><br> Outside the meeting hall, public discussion was equally divided. Some commentators offered a <strong> smorgasbord </strong> of explanations, ranging from administrative negligence to deliberate obstruction. Others simply repeated rumours. The situation demonstrated that an elaborate or <strong> rococo </strong> explanation was not necessarily a convincing one. Excessive detail could conceal the absence of substance just as effectively as silence. <br><br> The committee eventually warned that a <strong>pigheaded</strong> refusal to cooperate would weaken public confidence. It also rejected the argument that officials should attempt to <strong> avenge </strong> criticism by attacking those who asked difficult questions. Accountability, the committee concluded, required evidence, openness, and the willingness to reconsider one’s position.
Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?
Explanation: The passage clearly states that one member rejected personal attacks and argued that cooperation and objective examination of evidence were necessary. The remaining options contradict the passage: the committee disapproved of personal attacks, the records were withheld, not every member joined the mudslinging, and the commentators offered varied explanations.
DIRECTIONS: 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> The committee had been established to examine allegations concerning a public contract, but its first meeting produced little clarity. The chief official arrived with several <strong> flunkies </strong> who praised every statement he made and discouraged independent questioning. When members requested the original records, he attempted to <strong> stonewall </strong> the inquiry by claiming that the documents were unavailable. His answers were not merely incomplete; they appeared to <strong> parrot </strong> a prepared explanation that had already been circulated among his subordinates. <br><br> The committee members then directed a <strong> volley </strong> of precise questions at him. Rather than respond to the evidence, the official accused his critics of personal hostility. The discussion soon descended into <strong>mudslinging</strong>, with each accusation drawing attention away from the missing documents. One member, however, refused to participate in the personal attacks. She observed that an investigation could neither establish guilt nor provide <strong> vindication </strong> unless all parties cooperated and the evidence was examined objectively. <br><br> Outside the meeting hall, public discussion was equally divided. Some commentators offered a <strong> smorgasbord </strong> of explanations, ranging from administrative negligence to deliberate obstruction. Others simply repeated rumours. The situation demonstrated that an elaborate or <strong> rococo </strong> explanation was not necessarily a convincing one. Excessive detail could conceal the absence of substance just as effectively as silence. <br><br> The committee eventually warned that a <strong>pigheaded</strong> refusal to cooperate would weaken public confidence. It also rejected the argument that officials should attempt to <strong> avenge </strong> criticism by attacking those who asked difficult questions. Accountability, the committee concluded, required evidence, openness, and the willingness to reconsider one’s position.
Which word is closest in meaning to vindication as used in the passage?
Explanation: In context, vindication refers to clearing a person from blame or establishing that the person was justified. Justification most closely expresses that meaning. Defamation damages reputation, obstruction blocks a process, retaliation means responding to a wrong, and restraint means limitation or control.
DIRECTIONS: 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> The committee had been established to examine allegations concerning a public contract, but its first meeting produced little clarity. The chief official arrived with several <strong> flunkies </strong> who praised every statement he made and discouraged independent questioning. When members requested the original records, he attempted to <strong> stonewall </strong> the inquiry by claiming that the documents were unavailable. His answers were not merely incomplete; they appeared to <strong> parrot </strong> a prepared explanation that had already been circulated among his subordinates. <br><br> The committee members then directed a <strong> volley </strong> of precise questions at him. Rather than respond to the evidence, the official accused his critics of personal hostility. The discussion soon descended into <strong>mudslinging</strong>, with each accusation drawing attention away from the missing documents. One member, however, refused to participate in the personal attacks. She observed that an investigation could neither establish guilt nor provide <strong> vindication </strong> unless all parties cooperated and the evidence was examined objectively. <br><br> Outside the meeting hall, public discussion was equally divided. Some commentators offered a <strong> smorgasbord </strong> of explanations, ranging from administrative negligence to deliberate obstruction. Others simply repeated rumours. The situation demonstrated that an elaborate or <strong> rococo </strong> explanation was not necessarily a convincing one. Excessive detail could conceal the absence of substance just as effectively as silence. <br><br> The committee eventually warned that a <strong>pigheaded</strong> refusal to cooperate would weaken public confidence. It also rejected the argument that officials should attempt to <strong> avenge </strong> criticism by attacking those who asked difficult questions. Accountability, the committee concluded, required evidence, openness, and the willingness to reconsider one’s position.
Which option best expresses the opposite of pigheaded in the context of the passage?
Explanation: Pigheaded means unreasonably stubborn and unwilling to reconsider one’s opinion. Open-minded is therefore the best antonym, particularly because the passage emphasises willingness to reconsider one’s position. Obstinate, headstrong, inflexible, and stubborn are all synonyms of pigheaded.
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.
