A real previous year paper: tap an option to check it, the explanation opens with the answer. Log in (free) to attempt it as a timed test with a score.
Select the most appropriate synonym of the given word
JUVENILE
Explanation: Juvenile refers to something young, immature, or childlike. Among the given options, Childish is the closest in meaning because it directly conveys the quality of being like a child, whereas Adult and Mature are opposites in sense, and Wise does not match the meaning of the word.
Choose the correct meaning of idiom:
Bury the hatchet
Explanation: The idiom bury the hatchet means to make peace or end a quarrel after conflict. It is used when two people or groups decide to stop fighting and become friendly again. The other options do not express the idea of ending hostility and restoring peace.
Select the most appropriate antonym of the given word.
Extirpate
Explanation: Extirpate means to destroy completely, root out, or wipe out. Its opposite is establish, which means to set up, found, or bring into existence. Exterminate, uproot, and eradicate all carry a destructive meaning similar to extirpate rather than an opposite one.
Identify the misspelt word
Identify the misspelt word
Explanation: The incorrect spelling is Indispensible. The correct spelling is Indispensable. The other three words are correctly spelt as given. This question tests standard spelling accuracy, and the error lies in the ending of the word, where able is correct instead of ible.
Identify the misspelt word
Spot the correct spelling of early film base compound.
Explanation: Nitrocellulose is the correct spelling of the compound historically used in early film bases. The other options contain spelling errors such as missing letters, wrong inserted letters, or unnecessary repetition of letters. Therefore, Nitrocellulose is the only accurate form among the choices.
Choose the correct one-word substitute for
A person who eats excessively or greedily’.
Explanation: A glutton is a person who eats too much or eats greedily. Gourmet and epicure refer to people who appreciate fine food rather than overeat, and sybarite refers more generally to a person devoted to luxury and pleasure. So Glutton is the precise one-word substitute here.
Select the correct option:
The finance minister’s statement was laden with caveats, none of ___ were explained.
Explanation: The correct construction is none of which were explained because which properly refers back to caveats in a relative clause. That is not used after a preposition in this structure, them does not fit grammatically here, and whom is used for persons, not things.
Select the correct option:
The philosopher’s stance was diametrically ___ to the prevailing orthodoxy.
Explanation: The standard expression is diametrically opposed to, which means completely contrary to something. Adverse means harmful, averse means unwilling, and converse means opposite in a different grammatical sense, but none fits the established idiomatic expression as accurately as opposed.
Select the correct option:
No sooner ___ the findings published than critics began questioning their legitimacy.
Explanation: The correct correlative structure is No sooner had ... than .... This pattern takes the auxiliary had before the subject in formal English when referring to a completed action before another past action. The other options do not fit the required grammatical structure of the sentence.
Find the part of the sentence that contains an error:
The policy aims to neither penalise first-time offenders (1)/ nor those who may have violated norms (2)/ due to systemic ambiguity (3)/ rather than deliberate intent. (4)
Explanation: The error lies in part (1) because the placement of neither is faulty. A better structure would be aims neither to penalise first-time offenders nor those.... The sentence needs proper parallel construction, and the present phrasing aims to neither penalise is grammatically awkward.
Find the part of the sentence that contains an error:
It was not merely the fragmentation of administrative jurisdictions across sectors (1)/ that disrupted cohesive governance, but the inertia embedded in overlapping regulatory mandates (2)/ which, though designed to safeguard institutional autonomy, (3)/ ends up paralyzing inter-departmental responsiveness altogether. (4) (a) (1)
Explanation: The error is in part (4) because the relative clause introduced by which refers to overlapping regulatory mandates, which is plural, so the verb should agree accordingly. The phrase ends up is singular and creates a subject-verb agreement problem in that clause.
Change the following from active to passive:
The committee had been debating complex amendments when the bell rang.
Explanation: The active sentence is in the past perfect continuous tense, so its passive form becomes had been being debated. Among the options, only option (b) correctly preserves the tense, the object-subject shift, and the passive structure. The other options contain obvious grammatical errors.
Select the sentence containing the homonym of the highlighted word:
The knight raised his pauldron before mounting.
Explanation: The paper marks option (c) as correct because the word is used in a different contextual sense there, unlike the other options which continue the armour-related meaning. Therefore, within the logic of the given question, option (c) is treated as the intended homonym-based usage.
Convert the sentence provided below from its passive voice structure to an active voice structure:
A letter is written to the editor by the citizen every week.
Explanation: In the passive sentence, the doer is the citizen and the receiver is the editor. Converting it into active voice makes the citizen the subject: The citizen writes a letter to the editor every week. The tense remains simple present, and the meaning stays unchanged.
India’s tryst with the Olympic Games began in 1900, when Norman Pritchard, a British-Indian athlete, clinched two silver medals in athletics. However, it wasn’t until the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics that India emerged as a formidable force in hockey, winning its first team gold. What followed was a golden era, where the Indian men’s hockey team dominated the Olympic arena with eight gold medals between 1928 and 1980—an unmatched legacy. Despite this early excellence, India’s Olympic journey has been riddled with inconsistencies. Post-1980, a conspicuous medal drought gripped the nation, exposing systemic inefficiencies: lack of infrastructure, inadequate training, and minimal grassroots scouting. Athletes often relied more on personal resilience than institutional support to achieve global recognition. The 21st century, however, has ushered in a phase of cautious optimism. With the establishment of bodies like the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and increased corporate sponsorship, Indian athletes now enjoy improved access to international-level coaching, nutrition, and psychological training. The medal tallies, though modest, have seen an upward trend—symbolized by Neeraj Chopra’s historic gold in javelin at Tokyo 2020. What’s most heartening is the diversification of sports. No longer confined to hockey and wrestling, India is now making strides in disciplines like badminton, shooting, boxing, and athletics. Equally noteworthy is the rising representation and success of Indian women athletes, who have frequently been the torchbearers in recent Olympic outings. Yet, challenges remain. The transition from potential to podium demands long-term investment, scientific sports management, and societal encouragement that transcends cricket-centric fandom. While India’s Olympic identity is still evolving, the collective ambition is clearer than ever: to transform from a participant nation into a sporting powerhouse.
When did India first win an Olympic team gold medal?
Explanation: The passage clearly states that India won its first Olympic team gold in hockey at the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics. Although India’s Olympic participation began in 1900 through Norman Pritchard, the first team gold came later in Amsterdam, marking the start of India’s hockey dominance.
India’s tryst with the Olympic Games began in 1900, when Norman Pritchard, a British-Indian athlete, clinched two silver medals in athletics. However, it wasn’t until the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics that India emerged as a formidable force in hockey, winning its first team gold. What followed was a golden era, where the Indian men’s hockey team dominated the Olympic arena with eight gold medals between 1928 and 1980—an unmatched legacy. Despite this early excellence, India’s Olympic journey has been riddled with inconsistencies. Post-1980, a conspicuous medal drought gripped the nation, exposing systemic inefficiencies: lack of infrastructure, inadequate training, and minimal grassroots scouting. Athletes often relied more on personal resilience than institutional support to achieve global recognition. The 21st century, however, has ushered in a phase of cautious optimism. With the establishment of bodies like the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and increased corporate sponsorship, Indian athletes now enjoy improved access to international-level coaching, nutrition, and psychological training. The medal tallies, though modest, have seen an upward trend—symbolized by Neeraj Chopra’s historic gold in javelin at Tokyo 2020. What’s most heartening is the diversification of sports. No longer confined to hockey and wrestling, India is now making strides in disciplines like badminton, shooting, boxing, and athletics. Equally noteworthy is the rising representation and success of Indian women athletes, who have frequently been the torchbearers in recent Olympic outings. Yet, challenges remain. The transition from potential to podium demands long-term investment, scientific sports management, and societal encouragement that transcends cricket-centric fandom. While India’s Olympic identity is still evolving, the collective ambition is clearer than ever: to transform from a participant nation into a sporting powerhouse.
What major issue plagued India’s Olympic performance post-1980?
Explanation: The passage says that after 1980 India experienced a medal drought caused by systemic inefficiencies such as lack of infrastructure, inadequate training, and poor grassroots scouting. These structural weaknesses are directly identified as the major problem, not fan interest, cricket dependence alone, or lack of global events.
India’s tryst with the Olympic Games began in 1900, when Norman Pritchard, a British-Indian athlete, clinched two silver medals in athletics. However, it wasn’t until the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics that India emerged as a formidable force in hockey, winning its first team gold. What followed was a golden era, where the Indian men’s hockey team dominated the Olympic arena with eight gold medals between 1928 and 1980—an unmatched legacy. Despite this early excellence, India’s Olympic journey has been riddled with inconsistencies. Post-1980, a conspicuous medal drought gripped the nation, exposing systemic inefficiencies: lack of infrastructure, inadequate training, and minimal grassroots scouting. Athletes often relied more on personal resilience than institutional support to achieve global recognition. The 21st century, however, has ushered in a phase of cautious optimism. With the establishment of bodies like the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and increased corporate sponsorship, Indian athletes now enjoy improved access to international-level coaching, nutrition, and psychological training. The medal tallies, though modest, have seen an upward trend—symbolized by Neeraj Chopra’s historic gold in javelin at Tokyo 2020. What’s most heartening is the diversification of sports. No longer confined to hockey and wrestling, India is now making strides in disciplines like badminton, shooting, boxing, and athletics. Equally noteworthy is the rising representation and success of Indian women athletes, who have frequently been the torchbearers in recent Olympic outings. Yet, challenges remain. The transition from potential to podium demands long-term investment, scientific sports management, and societal encouragement that transcends cricket-centric fandom. While India’s Olympic identity is still evolving, the collective ambition is clearer than ever: to transform from a participant nation into a sporting powerhouse.
Which initiative is mentioned as a game-changer in recent Olympic preparation?
Explanation: The passage specifically names the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) as one of the important institutional developments that improved access to coaching, nutrition, and psychological training. It is directly presented as part of the recent positive change in India’s Olympic preparation system.
India’s tryst with the Olympic Games began in 1900, when Norman Pritchard, a British-Indian athlete, clinched two silver medals in athletics. However, it wasn’t until the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics that India emerged as a formidable force in hockey, winning its first team gold. What followed was a golden era, where the Indian men’s hockey team dominated the Olympic arena with eight gold medals between 1928 and 1980—an unmatched legacy. Despite this early excellence, India’s Olympic journey has been riddled with inconsistencies. Post-1980, a conspicuous medal drought gripped the nation, exposing systemic inefficiencies: lack of infrastructure, inadequate training, and minimal grassroots scouting. Athletes often relied more on personal resilience than institutional support to achieve global recognition. The 21st century, however, has ushered in a phase of cautious optimism. With the establishment of bodies like the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and increased corporate sponsorship, Indian athletes now enjoy improved access to international-level coaching, nutrition, and psychological training. The medal tallies, though modest, have seen an upward trend—symbolized by Neeraj Chopra’s historic gold in javelin at Tokyo 2020. What’s most heartening is the diversification of sports. No longer confined to hockey and wrestling, India is now making strides in disciplines like badminton, shooting, boxing, and athletics. Equally noteworthy is the rising representation and success of Indian women athletes, who have frequently been the torchbearers in recent Olympic outings. Yet, challenges remain. The transition from potential to podium demands long-term investment, scientific sports management, and societal encouragement that transcends cricket-centric fandom. While India’s Olympic identity is still evolving, the collective ambition is clearer than ever: to transform from a participant nation into a sporting powerhouse.
What recent trend is encouraging in India’s Olympic profile?
Explanation: The passage emphasizes diversification beyond hockey and wrestling into badminton, shooting, boxing, and athletics, and also highlights the rising representation and success of Indian women athletes. This broadening of sporting success is presented as the most encouraging development in India’s Olympic profile.
India’s tryst with the Olympic Games began in 1900, when Norman Pritchard, a British-Indian athlete, clinched two silver medals in athletics. However, it wasn’t until the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics that India emerged as a formidable force in hockey, winning its first team gold. What followed was a golden era, where the Indian men’s hockey team dominated the Olympic arena with eight gold medals between 1928 and 1980—an unmatched legacy. Despite this early excellence, India’s Olympic journey has been riddled with inconsistencies. Post-1980, a conspicuous medal drought gripped the nation, exposing systemic inefficiencies: lack of infrastructure, inadequate training, and minimal grassroots scouting. Athletes often relied more on personal resilience than institutional support to achieve global recognition. The 21st century, however, has ushered in a phase of cautious optimism. With the establishment of bodies like the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) and increased corporate sponsorship, Indian athletes now enjoy improved access to international-level coaching, nutrition, and psychological training. The medal tallies, though modest, have seen an upward trend—symbolized by Neeraj Chopra’s historic gold in javelin at Tokyo 2020. What’s most heartening is the diversification of sports. No longer confined to hockey and wrestling, India is now making strides in disciplines like badminton, shooting, boxing, and athletics. Equally noteworthy is the rising representation and success of Indian women athletes, who have frequently been the torchbearers in recent Olympic outings. Yet, challenges remain. The transition from potential to podium demands long-term investment, scientific sports management, and societal encouragement that transcends cricket-centric fandom. While India’s Olympic identity is still evolving, the collective ambition is clearer than ever: to transform from a participant nation into a sporting powerhouse.
What is implied about India’s Olympic aspirations?
Explanation: The passage conveys optimism about India’s progress, but it also stresses that long-term investment, scientific sports management, and broader social encouragement are still needed. This implies that India is improving steadily, yet continued reforms are necessary to become a true sporting powerhouse.
Choose the most suitable option to replace the highlighted part of the sentence:
Had I known about the traffic, I will leave early.
Explanation: This is a third conditional sentence referring to an unreal past situation, so the correct structure is Had I known ..., I would have left earlier. The original phrase will leave early is grammatically incorrect in this context because it does not match the conditional form required for past unreal situations.
One Prime for the website and the app, same login. Videos play in the app.
Free. Mobile number + OTP, no password.
