Sentence Correction Questions in English

(C) The original sentence contains a grammatical error in the phrase '$was\, done$'.
In the given sentence,the main clause is in the present tense ('does').
To maintain consistency in the tense of the subordinate clause,we should use the simple present tense to describe a habitual action or a general truth.
Therefore,the correct phrase to replace '$was\, done$' is 'does'.
The corrected sentence is: 'The small child does whatever his father does.'

(A) The original sentence '$You\, need\, not\, come\, unless\, you\, want\, to.$' is grammatically correct. However,in the context of multiple-choice questions regarding sentence improvement,'$You\, don't\, need\, to\, come\, unless\, you\, want\, to.$' is a more common and standard way to express the same meaning in modern English. The modal verb '$need\, not$' is correct,but '$don't\, need\, to$' is more frequently used in standard conversational English. Therefore,option $A$ is the most appropriate replacement.

(A) The phrase $short\, names$ in the context of referring to famous people is idiomatically and logically replaced by $initials$. $Initials$ refer to the first letters of a person's name,which are commonly used to refer to famous individuals (e.g.,$JFK$ for John $F$. Kennedy). Therefore,the correct option is $A$.

(D) The original phrase '$to\, who\, I\, sold$' is grammatically incorrect because the relative pronoun 'who' is in the subjective case, whereas it should be in the objective case ('whom') because it is the object of the preposition 'to'.
Additionally, the verb 'sold' is in the past tense, which is consistent with the rest of the sentence ('was a cheat').
Therefore, the correct phrase is '$to\, whom\, I\, sold$'.

(D) The original sentence is: "They were all shocked at his failure in the competition."
$1$. The phrase "were all shocked at" is grammatically correct.
$2$. The verb "were" is the past tense of "to be",which is appropriate here as a linking verb followed by the adjective "shocked".
$3$. The preposition "at" is correctly used with the adjective "shocked" to indicate the cause of the emotion.
$4$. Therefore,no correction is required.

(B) The phrase $is\, speaking\, itself$ is grammatically incorrect in this context.
The correct idiomatic expression is $speaks\, for\, itself$,which means that something is so clear or obvious that it does not need any further explanation.
Therefore,the sentence should read: "$I$ need not offer any explanation regarding this incident $-$ my behaviour $speaks\, for\, itself$."
Thus,option $B$ is the correct choice.

(A) The sentence uses the structure '$too + adjective + infinitive$'.
In this construction, the infinitive form '$to + verb$' is required to express the intended meaning.
Therefore, '$for\, tolerating$' is grammatically incorrect and should be replaced by '$to\, tolerate$'.
The correct sentence is: 'He is too important to tolerate any delay.'

(D) The original sentence is: "The population of Tokyo is greater than that of any other town in the world."
In comparative sentences involving populations,we compare the population of one city with the population of another city.
The phrase "that of" correctly refers to "the population of".
"Any other town" is the correct singular construction to compare one item against all others in the same category.
Therefore,the sentence is already grammatically correct,and no replacement is needed.

(B) The original sentence uses the superlative degree '$worst$' with the comparative conjunction '$than$'.
Grammatically,when comparing two states or qualities,the comparative degree must be used.
The comparative form of '$bad$' is '$worse$'.
Therefore,'$worse$ than $I$ had expected' is the correct phrase to replace '$worst$ than $I$ had expected'.

(A) In English grammar, when using the auxiliary verb $did$ to form a question in the past tense, the main verb must be in its base form (infinitive without $to$).
The structure is: $Did + \text{subject} + \text{not} + \text{base form of verb} + \dots$
Here, the base form of the verb $threw$ is $throw$.
Therefore, the correct phrase is $did\, you\, not\, throw$.

(A) The word '$Shapes$' is inappropriate in this context because it refers to geometric forms. In the context of religious worship,the correct term for representations of gods and goddesses is '$Images$' or '$Idols$'. Therefore,'$Images$' is the most suitable replacement for the bolded word '$Shapes$'.

(C) The phrase '$to \,enhanced\, their\, reputations$' is grammatically incorrect because the preposition '$to$' must be followed by a gerund (verb + -ing) when used in the phrase '$in \,addition \,to$'.
In this context, '$in \,addition \,to$' acts as a prepositional phrase, and the verb that follows must be in the gerund form.
Therefore, '$to \,enhancing \,their \,reputation$' is the correct construction.
Option $C$ is the correct choice.

(D) The original phrase '$for\, few\, moments$' is grammatically incorrect because the quantifier 'few' requires the indefinite article 'a' to denote a small number of something.
'Few' by itself has a negative connotation (meaning 'not many'),whereas 'a few' has a positive connotation (meaning 'some').
In the context of the sentence,the intruder stood for a short duration,so '$for\, a\, few\, moments$' is the correct idiomatic expression.
Therefore,option $D$ is the correct choice.

(D) The original sentence uses the phrase '$so\, far\, succeeded\, in\, recovering$'.
In English grammar, the phrase '$so\, far$' is correctly used to indicate 'up to this point in time'.
The verb '$succeeded$' is followed by the preposition '$in$' and a gerund (verb + $ing$), which is '$recovering$'.
Therefore, the phrase '$so\, far\, succeeded\, in\, recovering$' is grammatically correct as it stands.
Thus, no correction is required.

(D) The original sentence is: 'He confidently asked the crowd if they thought he was right and the crowd shouted $that\, they\, did.$'
In this sentence,the phrase '$that\, they\, did$' refers to the crowd's agreement with the speaker's question ('if they thought he was right').
Since the verb 'thought' is in the past tense,the response 'they did' (meaning 'they thought he was right') is grammatically correct and consistent with the tense of the main clause.
Therefore,no correction is required.

(A) The given sentence is a statement,not a direct question. In a noun clause acting as the subject of the sentence,the word order should be subject-verb rather than verb-subject.
In the original sentence,'$should\, the\, candidates\, be$' follows the interrogative structure (verb-subject). To make it a statement,it should be changed to '$the\, candidates\, should\, be$'.
Therefore,the correct sentence is: 'Why $the\, candidates\, should\, be$ afraid of the English Language is not clear.'

(D) The original sentence uses the past tense verb '$found$' in the main clause. Therefore,the subordinate clause must also be in the past tense to maintain consistency.
$1$. The phrase '$as\, he\, cleans$' is grammatically incorrect because it mixes past tense ('$found$') with present tense ('$cleans$').
$2$. Option '$A$' ('$as\, he\, had\, cleaned$') implies the cleaning was completed before finding the coin,which is less idiomatic than the continuous action.
$3$. Option '$D$' ('$while\, cleaning$') is the most concise and grammatically correct way to express that the action of finding the coin occurred during the process of cleaning the floor. It correctly uses a participle phrase to describe the timing of the event.

(B) The sentence is in the past tense,as indicated by the verb '$admired$'.
To maintain grammatical parallelism,the second part of the sentence must also be in the past tense.
Therefore,the present participle '$appreciating$' should be replaced by the past tense verb '$appreciated$'.
The phrase '$the\, method\, adopted$' is grammatically correct as it uses the past participle to describe the method.
Thus,the correct replacement is '$appreciated\, the\, method\, adopted$'.

(B) The original sentence contains the phrase $picked\, up$ a quarrel,which is incorrect. The correct idiomatic expression is to $pick$ a quarrel,meaning to start an argument intentionally. Furthermore,the word $hurried$ is an adjective,but here an adverb is required to describe how she left the party. Therefore,the phrase should be corrected to $picked$ and the word $hurried$ should be $hurriedly$.

(D) The sentence lists a series of actions performed by the subject 'She'.
These actions are 'cooks','washes',and 'does',which are all in the simple present tense.
To maintain parallel structure,the final verb must also be in the simple present tense.
Therefore,'then relaxing' should be replaced with 'then relaxes' to match the tense of the preceding verbs.

(A) The original phrase '$can\, be \,facilitated\, from$' is grammatically incorrect because the verb 'facilitate' (meaning to make easier) is typically followed by the preposition 'by' when indicating the agent or means of facilitation.
In this context,'general awareness' and 'education' are the means through which skills are acquired. Therefore,the correct preposition to use is 'by'.
Option $A$ ('can be facilitated by') correctly replaces the bold phrase,making the sentence grammatically sound: 'Acquisition of certain specific skills can be facilitated by general awareness,education to novel situations.'

(C) The original sentence contains a grammatical error in the parallel structure of the auxiliary verbs. The phrase '$has$ and ever will take' is incorrect because '$has$' requires a past participle form (taken),while '$will$' requires the base form (take). Furthermore,the use of '$never$' and '$ever$' needs to be balanced correctly. The correct construction is '$has$ never and never will take' or simply correcting the structure to '$has$ and never will take'. Among the given options,option $C$ provides the most grammatically sound structure: 'He never $has$ and never will take such strong measures.' Note: The original bold phrase was '$has$ and ever will take'. Replacing it with '$has$ and never will take' makes the sentence: 'He never $has$ and never will take such strong measures.'

$(A)$ The original sentence 'Technology $must\, use\, to\, feed$ the forces of change' is grammatically incorrect because 'Technology' is the receiver of the action, not the doer. Therefore, a passive voice construction is required.
The correct structure is 'Subject + modal verb + be + past participle'.
Thus, 'must use' should be replaced by 'must be used' to convey that technology is utilized to support the forces of change.
The correct option is $A$.

(C) The original sentence uses the pronoun $you$,which is inconsistent with the subject $Anyone$. $Anyone$ is a singular indefinite pronoun. Therefore,the pronoun used later in the sentence must agree with it in number and person. Using $he\, or\, she$ is the grammatically correct way to refer back to $Anyone$ in a singular sense. Thus,the phrase $he\, or\, she\, has\, access$ is the correct replacement.

(B) The original phrase $are\, not\, beware\, of$ is grammatically incorrect because 'beware' is a verb that is typically used in the imperative form (e.g.,'Beware of the dog'). In this context,the speaker intends to convey a lack of knowledge or information. The correct adjective to use here is 'aware',which is followed by the preposition 'of'. Therefore,the phrase 'are not aware of' is the correct replacement.

(C) The original phrase '$can\, not\, always\, convey$' is incorrect for two reasons:
$1$. '$cannot$' is the standard single-word form for the negative of '$can$'.
$2$. The verb '$convey$' is typically used for ideas or messages,whereas '$express$' is the correct verb when referring to expressing 'ourselves'.
Therefore,'$cannot\, always\, express$' is the most grammatically and contextually appropriate replacement.

(B) The original sentence uses the structure 'What does agonise me most'. In this context,'What' acts as the subject of the sentence. When 'What' is the subject,the verb should agree with it in the third-person singular form. Therefore,'does agonise' should be replaced by 'agonises'. The correct sentence is: 'What agonises me most is not this criticism,but the trivial reason behind it.' Thus,option $B$ is the correct choice.

(C) The phrase '$were\, deferred\, into$' is grammatically incorrect in this context.
When an event or task is postponed to a future time or date,the correct preposition to use with the verb 'defer' is 'to'.
Therefore,the correct phrase is '$were\, deferred\, to$'.
Thus,the correct sentence is: 'As there was no time,the remaining items were deferred to the next meeting.'

(A) The word 'Despite' is a preposition that means 'without being affected by' or 'in spite of'.
It is never followed by the preposition 'of'.
Therefore,the phrase 'Despite of' is grammatically incorrect.
The correct usage is either 'Despite' or 'In spite of'.
In the given sentence,replacing 'Despite of their' with 'Despite their' makes the sentence grammatically correct.

(B) The original phrase '$get\, the\, mostly\, severe$' is grammatically incorrect because 'mostly' is an adverb of degree and cannot modify the adjective 'severe' in this context. The superlative form of the adjective 'severe' is 'most severe'. Therefore,the correct phrase to replace the bold text is '$get\, the\, most\, severe$'. This makes the sentence: 'The man who has committed such a serious crime must get the most severe punishment.'

(A) The sentence structure $so ... as$ is used for negative comparisons to indicate equality or similarity. Since the sentence contains the negative word $no$,the correct correlative conjunction to use is $as$. Therefore,the phrase $so$ famous $as$ is grammatically correct.

(C) The original phrase '$how\, did\, the\, thief\, made$' is grammatically incorrect because it uses the auxiliary verb '$did$' followed by the past tense verb '$made$'.
In an indirect question (a clause acting as the object of 'know'),the word order should be subject-verb,not verb-subject (inversion).
Therefore,the correct structure is 'how' + 'subject' ('the thief') + 'verb' ('made').
Thus,the correct phrase is '$how\, the\, thief\, made$'.

(D) The original phrase '$yesterday's \,performance\, was$' is grammatically correct.
In English,the possessive form '$yesterday's$' is used to indicate that the performance belonged to or occurred on yesterday.
Since '$performance$' is a singular noun,the singular verb '$was$' is correctly used.
Therefore,no correction is required.

(C) The phrase $to\, make\, both\, ends\, meet$ is grammatically incorrect.
The correct idiomatic expression is $to\, make\, both\, ends\, meet$, which means to earn enough money to cover one's basic living expenses.
Therefore, the correct phrase to replace the bold text is $to\, make\, both\, ends\, meet$.

(C) The original phrase '$asking\, him\, to\, rush\, his\, village$' is grammatically incorrect because the verb '$rush$' requires the preposition '$to$' when indicating movement towards a destination (a place like a village).
$1$. The verb '$rush$' is an intransitive verb in this context,meaning it requires a preposition to connect to the object '$village$'.
$2$. Therefore,the correct construction is '$rush\, to\, his\, village$'.
$3$. Comparing this with the given options,option $C$ ('$asking\, him\, to\, rush\, to\, his\, village$') provides the necessary preposition '$to$',making the sentence grammatically accurate.

(B) The word $phenomenons$ is grammatically incorrect because the plural of the noun $phenomenon$ is $phenomena$.
However,in the given sentence structure,the phrase $One of the$ is followed by a plural noun.
Therefore,the correct plural form to be used here is $phenomena$.

(C) The original sentence contains a grammatical error in the phrase "$Had\, you\, been\, told$".
In conditional sentences of the third type (past unreal conditional),the structure is "$Had + subject + past\, participle$" or "$If + subject + had + past\, participle$".
Here,the action is active (you telling me),so the correct form is "$Had\, you\, told$".
"$Had\, you\, been\, told$" implies a passive voice,which is incorrect in this context.
Therefore,the correct phrase is "$had\, you\, told$".

(A) The original sentence uses the phrase '$It\, was\, until\, many\, years$'. This is grammatically incorrect in this context.
The correct idiomatic expression is '$It\, was\, not\, until\, many\, years$ later that...',which is used to emphasize the passage of time before an event occurred.
Therefore,the phrase '$It\, was\, not\, until\, many\, years$' correctly replaces the bolded phrase.

(C) The phrase '$to\, rise\, from\, the\, occasion$' is idiomatically incorrect. The correct idiom is '$to\, rise\, to\, the\, occasion$', which means to show that one can deal with a difficult situation successfully. Therefore, '$to\, rise\, to$' is the correct replacement.

(B) The original phrase $isn't\, it\, makes$ is grammatically incorrect because it combines a verb $is$ with the main verb $makes$ in an improper structure.
$1$. The sentence is asking a question within a conditional structure.
$2$. The correct idiomatic expression for asking if something is logical is $does\, it\, make\, sense$.
$3$. Since the sentence is a question,we use the auxiliary verb $does$ followed by the subject $it$ and the base verb $make$.
$4$. Therefore,the phrase $doesn't\, it\, make$ is the correct replacement to maintain the interrogative tone and grammatical accuracy.

(D) The phrase '$one\, of\, the\, most\, important\, inventions\, of\, this\, century$' is grammatically correct.
In English grammar,the structure '$one\, of\, the$ + plural noun' is used to indicate that the subject is one member of a larger group.
Here,'$inventions$' is the plural noun,which is correct.
Therefore,the original sentence is already correct and requires no changes.

(C) The sentence describes two actions in the past: the orator leaving the auditorium and the audience standing up.
According to the rules of English grammar, when two actions occur in the past, the action that happened first should be in the Past Perfect tense $(had + V_3)$, and the action that happened later should be in the Simple Past tense $(V_2)$.
Here, the orator leaving the auditorium happened first, so it should be in the Past Perfect tense: $had\, left$.
The second action (audience stood up) is already in the Simple Past tense $(stood)$.
Therefore, the correct phrase is $had\, left$.

(B) The given sentence is in the Simple Present Tense.
The subject is '$He$' (third-person singular),and the verb is '$dislikes$'.
For a positive statement in the Simple Present Tense,the question tag is formed using the auxiliary verb '$does$' and the negative particle '$not$'.
Therefore,the correct question tag is '$doesn't\, he$'.
Thus,option $B$ is the correct choice.

(A) The correct idiomatic expression is '$take\, something\, for\, granted$'.
This phrase means to fail to appreciate the value of something or to assume that something is true without questioning it.
In the given sentence,the structure requires the preposition '$for$' to be included to make it grammatically correct.
Therefore,the phrase '$take\, it\, granted$' should be replaced by '$take\, it\, for\, granted$'.

(A) The sentence structure uses the conjunction 'and' to connect two verbs that share the same subject,'The research study'.
$1$. The first part of the sentence is 'The research study is an eye-opener'. Here,the verb is 'is' (singular).
$2$. The second part of the sentence follows the conjunction 'and'. Therefore,the verb in the second part must also agree with the singular subject 'The research study'.
$3$. The original phrase 'attempts to acquaint' is already in the third-person singular form,which correctly agrees with the subject 'The research study'.
$4$. Since the original phrase is grammatically correct,no replacement is needed. However,if we must choose from the options provided,the original phrase is equivalent to the structure of the sentence. Given the options,the sentence is already correct as written.

(D) The given sentence uses the modal auxiliary verb $should$.
According to English grammar rules, a modal auxiliary verb must be followed by the base form of the verb (infinitive without $to$).
Therefore, the verb $undertook$ (past tense) is incorrect and must be replaced by the base form $undertake$.
The phrase $should\, unitedly \,undertake$ is grammatically correct as it correctly uses the modal verb followed by the base verb form.

(D) The phrase $despite \,of$ is grammatically incorrect. The correct usage is either $despite$ (without $of$) or $in \,spite \,of$.
In the given sentence,the original phrase is $despite \,of \,the \,heavy \,rains$.
Option $A$ is incorrect because it changes the tense.
Option $B$ is grammatically incorrect.
Option $C$ is incorrect because it lacks the preposition $of$ after $spite$.
Option $D$ $(even \,though \,it \,rained \,heavily)$ is grammatically correct and maintains the meaning of the sentence.

(D) The original phrase '$impose\, them\, on\, it$' is grammatically incorrect because the pronoun '$them$' refers to '$people$' (plural) and '$it$' refers to '$discipline$' (singular).
To '$impose$' something on someone,the correct structure is '$impose\, [something]\, on\, [someone]$'.
Here,'$it$' refers to the '$importance\, of\, discipline$' and '$them$' refers to the '$people$'.
Therefore,the correct phrase is '$impose\, it\, on\, them$'.
Thus,the correct option is $D$.

(D) The sentence describes an action that was happening in the past before the doctor's knowledge. The phrase 'before' indicates a time prior to the point of reference in the past. Therefore,the past perfect continuous tense is required to show an action that was in progress up to a certain point in the past. The correct phrase is '$had\, been\, doing$'. Thus,option $D$ is the correct choice.

(C) The phrase $to\, lord\, it\, over$ is a standard English idiom meaning to act in a superior or domineering manner towards someone.
In the given sentence, the phrase $to\, lord\, it\, on$ is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct phrase to replace the bold part is $to\, lord\, it\, over$.