Spotting Errors Questions in English

(C) The sentence is 'She sang very well,isn't it?'. The main verb 'sang' is in the past tense. Therefore,the question tag must also be in the past tense. The correct question tag for 'She sang' is 'didn't she?'. Thus,the error is in part $C$.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The word 'economic' is an adjective,whereas the sentence requires a verb to follow the auxiliary 'do not'. The correct verb form is 'economise' (or 'economize'). Therefore,the phrase should be 'If $I$ do not economise'.

(B) The error is in part $B$. The phrasal verb '$put off$' means to postpone,whereas '$take off$' means to remove clothing or footwear. Therefore,'$take off$' should be used instead of '$put off$'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase 'his dream now is about to visit the moon' is grammatically incorrect. The correct construction should be 'he now dreams of visiting the moon' or 'his dream now is to visit the moon'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The phrase 'and they see' is grammatically incorrect because it should be parallel to the modal verb 'should' used in part $B$. Since the sentence structure implies that the ministers 'should come' and 'should see',the correct phrasing is 'and see' instead of 'and they see'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The phrase 'prejudicial against' is correctly used to indicate that the lawyer's behavior could negatively affect the client's case. There are no errors in syntax,tense,or word usage. Thus,the correct choice is $D$.

(A) The sentence contains a grammatical error in part $A$. The phrase 'for the last four hours' indicates a duration of time that started in the past and continues into the present. Therefore,the present perfect continuous tense should be used instead of the present continuous tense. The correct sentence is: 'He has been wiring for the last four hours'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The preposition '$in$' should be replaced by '$into$' because '$walked into$' indicates movement from outside to inside a space. The correct sentence is: 'She walked into the room where the murder had taken place.'

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. In conditional sentences expressing a hypothetical situation in the past,the structure 'Were he to...' is a formal way of saying 'If he were to...'. The structure 'Were he to see you,he would be surprised' (present hypothetical) or 'Were he to have seen you,he would have been surprised' (past hypothetical) are common. However,the given sentence 'Were he to see you,he would have been surprised' is a standard inversion used in English grammar to denote a conditional clause. Thus,there is no error.

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The verb $persist$ is followed by the preposition $in$ and then the gerund form of the verb $(V+ing)$. Therefore, 'persisted to suggest' should be replaced with 'persisted in suggesting'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The verb 'listen' is followed by the preposition 'to'. Therefore,'listen with' should be replaced by 'listen to'.

(C) The error is in part $C$. The phrase 'to past time' is grammatically incorrect because 'past' is a noun or adjective,whereas the verb 'pass' is required here to mean 'to spend time'. Therefore,the correct phrase should be 'to pass time thus'.

(B) The error is in part $B$. In English grammar,when a noun phrase acts as an adjective modifying another noun (like 'note'),the unit of measurement (rupees) should be in the singular form. Therefore,'a hundred-rupees note' should be corrected to 'a hundred-rupee note'.

(A) The error lies in the first part of the sentence: 'Myself and Gopal'.
In English grammar,'myself' is a reflexive pronoun and cannot be used as the subject of a sentence.
The correct subject should be the personal pronoun '$I$'.
Additionally,according to the rule of etiquette in English,when referring to oneself and another person,the other person should be mentioned first.
Therefore,the correct phrase is 'Gopal and $I$'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The structure 'It is the newspaper that exposes us...' is a cleft sentence used for emphasis. The verb 'exposes' correctly agrees with the singular noun 'newspaper'. There are no errors in the usage of prepositions or vocabulary. Therefore,the correct choice is $D$.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. It follows the standard subject-verb agreement and structure. There are no errors in tense,preposition usage,or article placement. Therefore,the correct option is $D$.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The phrase "too many books" is used correctly to indicate a large quantity of books. There is no error in the sentence.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The sentence uses the past tense '$He$ $was$ $sure$'. According to the rule of sequence of tenses,when the main clause is in the past tense,the subordinate clause should also be in the past tense. Therefore,'$should$' should be replaced by '$would$' to indicate a future action from the perspective of the past.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The structure '$too + \text{adjective} + \text{to} + \text{infinitive}$' is used to express that someone is so intelligent that they would not make a mistake. Therefore,there is no error in the sentence.

(C) The error is in part $C$. The sentence describes a hypothetical past situation (third conditional),which follows the structure: $If + \text{past perfect}, \text{would have} + \text{past participle}$. Therefore,'did not get' should be replaced with 'had not got' to maintain the correct grammatical tense.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase '$Several$ $issues$ $raising$' is grammatically incorrect in this context because the issues are being acted upon (passive voice). It should be replaced with '$Several$ $issues$ $raised$' to correctly indicate that the issues were brought up and subsequently resolved.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The phrase 'went down his doom' is grammatically incorrect and idiomatic usage requires the verb 'met'. Therefore,the correct phrase should be 'and then met his doom very quickly'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The subject '$Nitin's \text{nephew}$' is singular and agrees with the verb '$lives$'. The prepositional phrases '$in \text{Bangalore}$' and '$to \text{Delhi}$' are used correctly. There is no error in the sentence.

(A) The error lies in part $A$ and part $D$.
$1$. The definite article '$The$' must be used before the names of holy books like the '$Bible$'.
$2$. In part $D$,the adjective '$great$' is used as a noun without a head noun. It should be '$a$ $great$ $book$' or '$a$ $great$ $work$' to make the sentence grammatically complete.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The definite article '$the$' should not be used before the name of a language when it is used as a noun in this context. The correct sentence is: 'The institute imparts training in French.'

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The relative pronoun 'what' is incorrectly used after 'anything'. When 'anything','everything','all',or 'none' are used as antecedents,the relative pronoun 'that' should be used instead of 'what'. Therefore,the correct phrase is 'give him anything that he wants'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase "he is always liking" is grammatically incorrect in this context because the sentence describes a passive state where the subject is appreciated by others. The correct verb form should be "he is always liked".

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The sentence implies a contrast between established dancers (luminaries) and upcoming dancers. Luminaries generally have many opportunities,whereas upcoming dancers lack them. Therefore,the phrase 'have a dearth of opportunities' should be corrected to 'have no dearth of opportunities' or 'have plenty of opportunities' to maintain the logical contrast.

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The phrase 'stipulated time provide' is grammatically incorrect. It should be 'stipulated time provided' or 'stipulated time provided that'. In this context,'provided' acts as a conjunction meaning 'on the condition that'. Therefore,the correct phrase is 'stipulated time provided'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The sentence follows the structure of a third conditional sentence $(If + \text{past perfect}, \text{would have} + \text{past participle})$. Since the second part of the sentence is '$if$ we had not brought the facts to their notice',the first part must be in the '$would have$' form. Therefore,'had repeated' should be replaced with 'would have repeated'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase 'the project completed' is grammatically incorrect because the project cannot complete itself; it is completed by someone. Therefore,it should be in the passive voice: 'the project was completed'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The structure '$too + \text{adjective} + \text{to} + \text{infinitive}$' is used correctly here to express that the degree of irritation was high enough to prevent him from concentrating. Therefore,there is no error in the sentence.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase "companies operating" is grammatically incomplete as a relative clause. It should be corrected to "companies are operating" to provide a proper subject-verb structure within the clause.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The phrase 'is required to' is incomplete because the infinitive 'to' requires a verb to follow it. Based on the context of the sentence,the correct completion is 'is required to undergo'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The preposition 'in' is incorrect when used with the verb 'wasted' in this context. The correct preposition to use is 'on'. Therefore,the phrase should be 'is wasted on'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase 'not tell to' is grammatically incorrect. The correct construction is 'not to tell'. The verb 'tell' is a transitive verb and does not require the preposition 'to' when followed by an object (the patient). Therefore,the corrected sentence is: 'We decided not to tell the patient about the disease he was suffering from.'

(B) The error is in part $B$ because the sentence refers to a past event. Therefore,the present tense verb 'see' should be replaced with the past tense verb 'saw'. The correct sentence is: 'When $I$ saw him last,he was in Calcutta.'

(B) The error lies in part $(B)$. In an indirect question,the subject must precede the verb. Therefore,'how could she' should be corrected to 'how she could'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase 'make from' is incorrect in this context. The correct phrasal verb is 'make out',which means to understand or decipher something. Therefore,the correct sentence should be: '$I$ cannot make out what you are saying about him.'

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The word 'preferable' already implies a comparative sense,so using 'more' before it is redundant. The correct usage is simply 'preferable to'.

(NONE) The sentence 'Looking forward to seeing you soon' is grammatically correct. In the phrase 'look forward to','to' acts as a preposition,not as part of an infinitive. Therefore,it must be followed by a gerund (the -ing form of a verb). Thus,'seeing' is the correct form,and there is no error in the sentence.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The preposition '$from$' is incorrect when referring to a duration of time. For a period of time (duration),the preposition '$for$' should be used instead of '$from$'. Therefore,the correct phrase is '$for$ the last $12$ years'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The structure 'You should inform your superiors about all those events which are directly related to your work' follows standard English grammar rules. There is no error in the subject-verb agreement,tense,or prepositional usage. Therefore,the correct option is $D$.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase 'look forward to' is a phrasal verb that is always followed by the preposition 'to',not 'for'. Therefore,'We now look forward for' should be corrected to 'We now look forward to'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The correct structure for the phrase starting with 'No sooner' is 'No sooner + auxiliary verb + subject + main verb'. Therefore,'No sooner the clock strike' should be corrected to 'No sooner did the clock strike'.

(A) The sentence contains a grammatical error in the first part,'We play'. Since the sentence includes the phrase 'since last June',it indicates an action that started in the past and is still continuing in the present. Therefore,the Present Perfect Continuous tense should be used instead of the Simple Present tense. The correct phrase is 'We have been playing'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The adjective 'capable' is always followed by the preposition 'of',not 'at'. Therefore,'he is capable at' should be corrected to 'he is capable of'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The phrase 'binding to fail' is grammatically incorrect. The correct idiomatic expression is 'bound to fail',which means certain or destined to fail. Therefore,'binding' should be replaced with 'bound'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The preposition 'for' is incorrect in this context. The correct preposition to use with 'attention' is 'to'. Therefore,the phrase should be 'and personal attention to each child'.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The phrase '$a$ true and fair view' is standard accounting terminology used in financial reporting to describe the accuracy and transparency of a balance sheet. There are no errors in subject-verb agreement,tense,or preposition usage.