Spotting Errors Questions in English

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The verb 'discuss' is a transitive verb and does not take the preposition 'about' after it. Therefore,'discussed about' should be replaced with 'discussed'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The verb '$drown$' is used for living beings,whereas for inanimate objects like a ship,the verb '$sink$' is used. Therefore,'$got drowned$' should be replaced with '$sank$'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase 'put up in' is incorrect when referring to staying at a hotel. The correct phrasal verb is 'put up at'. Therefore,the correct sentence should be: '$I$ could not put up at a hotel because the boarding and lodging charges were exorbitant.'

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase 'is free now from' is grammatically awkward. The correct idiomatic expression is 'is now free from'. Therefore,the correct phrasing is 'is now free from the narrow vested interests'.

(C) The sentence follows the structure of a third conditional (past unreal conditional). The structure is: 'If + past perfect,would have + past participle'. Therefore,'$I$ will have helped him' is incorrect and should be replaced with '$I$ would have helped him'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The phrase "on behalf of" is used to represent someone or to act as a representative. In this context,the sentence refers to the responsibility or fault of the railways. Therefore,the correct idiomatic expression is "on the part of the railways".

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The word $if$ is incorrectly used after the word $doubt$. When expressing doubt in a positive sentence,the conjunction $that$ should be used instead of $if$ or $whether$. Therefore,the correct phrase is $expressed$ $doubt$ $that$.

(A) The error lies in part $A$ of the sentence. When a specific time in the past is mentioned (like $1988$),the Simple Past tense should be used instead of the Present Perfect tense. Therefore,'$I$ have got' should be replaced with '$I$ got'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct.
$1$. 'Having received your letter this morning' is a perfect participle phrase acting as an adverbial modifier.
$2$. 'we are writing to thank you for the same' is the main clause.
$3$. There are no errors in tense,subject-verb agreement,or syntax.
Therefore,the correct choice is $D$.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase 'never you will get it back' is grammatically incorrect because the adverb 'never' should be placed after the auxiliary verb or before the main verb in this context. The correct structure is 'and you will never get it back'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase 'the meek and the humble' is required because 'meek' and 'humble' are adjectives acting as nouns to represent a class of people. Therefore,the correct phrasing is 'it is the meek and the humble who shall inherit the earth'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The verb 'smell' is a linking verb in this context,which describes the state of the subject rather than the action of smelling. Linking verbs are followed by adjectives,not adverbs. Therefore,the comparative adjective 'sweeter' should be used instead of the adverb 'more sweetly'.

(B) The error lies in part $A$. The subject of the sentence is 'Block',which is a singular collective noun. Therefore,the verb must agree with the singular subject. The correct sentence should be: '$A$ block of residential flats is coming up near our house.' Alternatively,if referring to multiple blocks,it should be 'Blocks of residential flats are coming up near our house.' Given the structure,the singular 'Block' requires the singular verb 'is'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The word 'information' is an uncountable noun and does not take a plural form like 'informations'. The phrase 'all the information that you want' is correct,and 'that' can be omitted,but its presence is not an error.

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The verb 'await' is a transitive verb and does not take the preposition 'for' after it. 'Await' is equivalent to 'wait for'. Therefore,the correct usage is either 'awaiting the arrival' or 'waiting for the arrival'. Since 'awaiting for' is grammatically incorrect,the error is in part $B$.

(B) The sentence 'Sixty miles are a good distance' contains a grammatical error. When a period of time,a sum of money,or a distance is considered as a single unit or a collective whole,it takes a singular verb. Therefore,'are' should be replaced by 'is'. The correct sentence is: 'Sixty miles is a good distance.'

(A) The error lies in the first part of the sentence. The sentence describes a state that existed in the past and ended at a specific point in the past (when they quarrelled). Therefore,the past perfect tense '$had been$' should be used instead of the present perfect tense '$have been$'. The correct sentence is: 'They had been very close friends until they quarrelled.'

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase "was stopped aching" is grammatically incorrect. The correct form should be "my tooth stopped aching" because the verb "stop" is used here in the active voice to describe the cessation of the action (aching).

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The word 'hardly' means 'barely' or 'almost not',which is contextually incorrect here. The correct phrase should be 'hard-won',which means 'won with great effort'. Therefore,'hardly-won' should be replaced by 'hard-won'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The correlative conjunction pair for '$No sooner$' is '$than$', not '$when$'. Therefore, '$when$' should be replaced with '$than$' to make the sentence grammatically correct. The corrected sentence is: '$No sooner did I open the door than the rain, heavy and stormy, rushed in making us shiver from head to foot.$'

(A) The error lies in part $A$ of the sentence. The phrase 'come into contact' is an idiomatic expression that does not require the definite article 'the'. Therefore,'come into the contact' should be corrected to 'come into contact'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The verb 'remember' means to keep in one's memory,whereas the context requires the speaker to be prompted or reminded to perform an action. Therefore,'remind me' should be used instead of 'remember me'. The correct sentence is: 'You must remind me to post this letter.'

(C) The error lies in part $C$. In a sentence containing a conditional or time clause starting with 'when',the future tense is not used in the subordinate clause. Therefore,'when $I$ shall reach' should be corrected to 'when $I$ reach'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The word "collusion" means a secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose. In the context of a road accident,the correct word is "collision," which means a violent encounter between two moving objects.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. Since the sentence mentions a duration of time ('for the last one month'),the present perfect continuous tense should be used instead of the present continuous tense. Therefore,'is not attending' should be replaced with 'has not been attending'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase '$couldn't but help$' is grammatically incorrect. The correct idiomatic expression is '$couldn't help but$' followed by a verb in the base form (gerund is not used here) or '$couldn't help$' followed by a gerund. Therefore,the correct construction should be '$He couldn't help shedding tears...$' or '$He couldn't help but shed tears...$'. Since '$but$' and '$help$' are incorrectly placed,part $A$ contains the error.

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. In conditional sentences starting with 'if',the 'if' clause should be in the Simple Present tense,while the main clause is in the Future tense. Therefore,'if you will ask him' should be replaced with 'if you ask him'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase 'skin blemish,free' is grammatically incorrect. It should be 'skin blemish-free' to function as a compound adjective describing the skin. Additionally,the original sentence structure in part $A$ ('had to be') is inconsistent with the present tense context of the product's benefits described in parts $B$ and $C$. However,the primary punctuation error is in part $C$.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The structure 'Will you please...' is a polite request,and the conditional clause 'if you go to the market' is correctly formed using the present tense. There are no errors in syntax,punctuation,or word usage. Therefore,the correct option is $D$.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The collective noun 'group' is treated as a singular unit in this context,as it refers to a single body of people acting together. Therefore,the plural verb 'were' should be replaced with the singular verb 'was'. The correct phrase is 'was not competent to do the job efficiently'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase 'a ten rupee's note' is grammatically incorrect. When a noun acts as an adjective (a compound adjective),it should not be in the possessive case. Therefore,'a ten rupee note' is the correct form.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The verb 'persist' is followed by the preposition 'in' and then a gerund (verb + -ing). Therefore,'to do it' should be replaced with 'in doing it'. The correct sentence is: 'He persisted in doing it in spite of my advice'.

(D) The error lies in the phrase 'before or since'. In English idiom,the correct sequence is 'since or before' when referring to a span of time encompassing the past and the present. However,in this specific context,the phrase 'before or since' is actually grammatically acceptable as an adverbial phrase. Upon closer inspection,the sentence is grammatically correct as written. Therefore,the correct option is $D$.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. In an indirect question or a noun clause,the subject must precede the verb. Therefore,the phrase 'what should a science of mental life be' should be corrected to 'what a science of mental life should be'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The verb 'have' is used to denote possession or state of being,and it is generally not used in the continuous form when referring to a physical sensation or illness. Therefore,'he is having a pain' should be corrected to 'he has a pain' or 'he is suffering from pain'. However,in the context of the sentence structure,the phrase 'as he has a pain in the chest' is grammatically correct.

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The phrase '$will be certain$' is redundant and grammatically incorrect in this context. Since the condition '$if a nuclear war breaks out$' implies a future possibility,the outcome should be stated as '$is certain$' or '$will be$'. Using '$will be certain$' creates a tautology. Therefore,the correct phrasing should be '$...that the end of the world is certain if a nuclear war breaks out.$'

(C) The error lies in part $C$. In English grammar,the phrase 'The reason' is followed by 'why' or a 'that' clause,not by 'because'. 'Because' is used to denote a cause,whereas 'The reason' already implies a cause. Therefore,the correct construction is 'The reason why Ram is absent from his duty is that he is unwell'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. In the structure 'one of the + plural noun + that/who/which + verb',the verb must agree with the plural noun (batsmen). Therefore,'have' should be replaced with 'has' because the relative pronoun 'that' refers to 'batsmen' (plural),but in this specific idiomatic construction,the verb following 'that' often takes the singular form if the subject is considered a collective entity or based on the proximity rule. However,strictly grammatically,'batsmen' is plural,so 'have' is correct. Wait,let's re-evaluate: 'one of the finest batsmen that India has produced'. Here,'that' refers to 'batsmen'. Since 'batsmen' is plural,'have' is technically correct. However,in standard English usage for this specific construction,'has' is often preferred to emphasize the singular group. Actually,the most common error in this pattern is the verb agreement. Let's correct it to: 'that India has produced'.

(A) The correct phrase is "broke into". The phrasal verb "break into" means to enter a building by force. Therefore,the error is in part $A$.

(B) The error is in part $B$. The objective case pronoun $whom$ should be used instead of $who$ because it functions as the object of the verb $want$. The correct sentence is: "May $I$ know whom you want to see please?"

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. Since the reporting verb 'said' is in the past tense,the reported speech must also be in the past tense. Therefore,'will' should be replaced by 'would'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase "he looked after his aunt" implies that Arun was the one taking care of his aunt. However,the context suggests that since his parents died when he was young,his aunt took care of him. Therefore,the correct phrase should be "he was looked after by his aunt".

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The sentence describes a general truth or a current social situation,so the present tense should be used instead of the past tense. Therefore,'prevailed' should be replaced with 'prevails'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase 'in bad mood' is grammatically incorrect. According to English grammar rules,the correct idiomatic expression is 'in a bad mood'. Therefore,the article 'a' must be included before 'bad mood'.

(C) The sentence is grammatically correct. The verb 'forbid' is followed by an object and then an infinitive (to + verb). Alternatively,it can be used as 'forbade the student to leave the hostel'. However,using 'forbade' with 'from' is considered incorrect in formal English grammar because 'forbid' already implies a negative constraint. Therefore,the correct construction is 'The warden forbade the student to leave the hostel'. Since the provided sentence uses 'from leaving',it contains a grammatical error.

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The phrase 'so far' indicates an action that has not been completed up to the present moment,which requires the Present Perfect tense. Therefore,'did not send' should be replaced with 'has not sent'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase '$As$ $much$ $as$' is used for comparison, whereas the concessive clause should begin with '$Much$ $as$'. Therefore, the correct sentence is: '$Much$ $as$ $I$ $admire$ $him$ $for$ $his$ $sterling$ $qualities$, $I$ $cannot$ $excuse$ $him$ $for$ $being$ $unfair$ $to$ $his$ $friends$.'

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The pronoun 'myself' is a reflexive pronoun and should not be used as an object of a preposition. The correct objective pronoun to use after the preposition 'between' is 'me'. Therefore,the phrase should be 'between my brother and me'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The word 'furniture' is an uncountable noun in English and does not have a plural form. Therefore,'furnitures' is grammatically incorrect and should be replaced with 'furniture'. Additionally,since 'furniture' is treated as a singular collective noun,the verb 'have' should be replaced with 'has'. The corrected sentence is: 'All the furniture has been sent to the new house located in a village.'

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The phrase "what $I$ want is that" is a standard construction used to introduce a noun clause acting as the subject complement. There is no error in the sentence structure or usage.