Spotting Errors Questions in English

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase 'cleared by clouds' is grammatically incorrect in this context. The correct preposition to use with 'cleared' when referring to the removal of something is 'of'. Therefore,the correct phrase should be 'cleared of clouds'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The phrase 'In the last week' indicates a past time reference,which requires the use of the past tense. Therefore,'$I$ tell' should be corrected to '$I$ told'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The correct preposition to use with the noun 'importance' in this context is 'of',not 'for'. Therefore,the phrase should be 'the importance of your work'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The word 'boldly' is an adverb,but here we need an adjective to modify the noun 'step'. Therefore,'boldly' should be replaced with 'bold'. The correct phrase is 'it was a bold step'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. According to the rule of subject-verb agreement,when a subject is followed by phrases like 'along with','as well as',or 'in addition to',the verb must agree with the first subject. Here,the first subject is 'The Head of the Department' (singular),so the verb should be 'is' instead of 'are'. Therefore,the correct phrase is 'is coming to attend'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase 'From over last five years' is grammatically incorrect when used with the present perfect continuous tense. The correct prepositional phrase to indicate a duration of time leading up to the present is 'For the last five years'. Therefore,'From' should be replaced with 'For'.

(A) The error is in part $A$. The sentence describes a past event,so the verb should be in the past tense. Therefore,'recover' should be replaced with 'recovered'. The correct sentence is: 'The patient recovered so fast that the expert doctors also were surprised.'

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The phrase "decide as to which" is grammatically incorrect. The verb "decide" should be followed directly by the interrogative pronoun "which" without the prepositional phrase "as to". Therefore,the correct construction is "Naren could not decide which course he should do after obtaining his Degree."

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The adjective 'indefinite' is used incorrectly here. To describe the action of postponing,an adverb is required. Therefore,'indefinite' should be replaced with the adverb 'indefinitely'.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase "during last few years" indicates a duration of time that started in the past and continues to the present. Therefore,the present perfect tense should be used instead of the simple present tense. The correct phrase is "The mission has provided".

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The subject of the sentence is 'The success' (singular),which is the head noun of the phrase 'The success of our efforts'. Therefore,the verb must be singular. The correct verb form is 'depends' instead of 'depend'.

(A) The error lies in the phrase 'put on'. In the context of submitting a note or document for review,the correct phrasal verb is 'put up'. Therefore,'$I$ will put up' is the correct usage.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase "we can end" is grammatically weak in this context. The more appropriate idiomatic expression is "we can put an end to" or "we can bring to an end". Therefore,the corrected segment should be "we can put an end to the hostilities of that area."

(NONE) The sentence is grammatically correct as written. The phrase 'Schools in that area which had English as a medium of instruction as the majority there spoke English' follows proper syntax and logical flow.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase '$I$ have had to work' is incorrect because the action was completed in the past,and the subsequent clause 'before it could start functioning well' indicates a past tense context. Therefore,the correct usage is '$I$ had to work' (Simple Past Tense) to maintain consistency with the past tense of the rest of the sentence.

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The sentence uses parallel structure. Since the verb in the first part is in the past tense ('admired'),the verb in the second part must also be in the past tense. Therefore,'appreciating' should be replaced with 'appreciated' to maintain grammatical consistency.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct as written. The structure 'Had $I$ + past participle' is a standard conditional inversion for the third conditional,which is followed by 'would have + past participle'. The phrase 'would have certainly helped' is correct as it implies the subject '$I$' is missing in the second clause,but in standard English usage,the sentence 'Had $I$ come to know about his difficulties,$I$ would have certainly helped' is complete and accurate.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The sentence refers to his current state or status,so the past tense verb '$was$' should be replaced with the present tense verb '$is$'. The correct phrase is '$Whatever he is$'. Therefore,the corrected sentence is: '$Whatever he is today is only because of his mother who was a renowned scientist.$'

(A) The sentence is grammatically correct. In negative comparisons,the structure '$so ... as$' is preferred over '$as ... as$'. Since the sentence starts with '$No girl$',it is a negative comparison,and '$so sprightly as$' is the correct usage.

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The subject '$The Trust$' is singular and takes the singular verb '$has$'. The adverb '$admirably$' correctly modifies the verb '$succeeded$'. The prepositional phrase '$in raising money for its future programmes$' is also correctly structured. Therefore, there is no error in the sentence.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The correlative conjunction $not \ only ... but \ also$ must be followed by the same part of speech or grammatical structure. In the given sentence,$not \ only$ is followed by the noun phrase $the \ main \ report$,so $but \ also$ should be followed by the noun phrase $the \ agenda \ notes \ and \ minutes$. The phrase $for \ preparing$ should be placed before $not \ only$ to maintain parallelism. The correct structure is: 'The committee is thankful to Shri Desai for preparing not only the main report but also the agenda notes and minutes.'

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is the gerund phrase 'Motivating employees with traditional authority and financial incentives'. Since the subject is a singular gerund phrase,it requires a singular verb. Therefore,'have become' should be replaced with 'has become'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The verb 'suffer' is followed by the preposition 'from' when referring to a negative condition or lack of something. Therefore,'suffer of shortage' should be corrected to 'suffer from shortage'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The subject 'teacher' is singular,so the pronoun referring to the teacher should be 'him' or 'her',not 'them'. Therefore,'positively to them' should be corrected to 'positively to him' or 'positively to her'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$ of the sentence. The phrase 'were overlook by' is grammatically incorrect because the sentence is in the passive voice. In the passive voice,the past participle form of the verb must be used after the auxiliary verb 'were'. Therefore,'overlook' should be replaced with 'overlooked'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The preposition '$to$' requires the objective case of the pronouns. Therefore, '$I$' (subjective case) should be replaced by '$me$' (objective case). The correct sentence is: 'Such rules do not apply to you and me.'

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The phrase 'in the humour for it' is idiomatic incorrect. The correct idiomatic expression is 'in the mood for it',which means to be in a state of mind where one is willing or inclined to do something.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The correlative conjunction for 'Scarcely' is 'when',not 'than'. Therefore,'than the master came' should be replaced with 'when the master came'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The phrase "to not to" is grammatically incorrect because it uses a double infinitive structure. The correct form is "not to" (negative infinitive). Therefore,the sentence should read: "The Head of the Department advised all the staff not to indulge in gossip."

(B) The error lies in part $B$ of the sentence. The verb 'dressed' is a transitive verb here,which requires a reflexive pronoun when the subject and the object are the same person. Therefore,'he dressed him' should be corrected to 'he dressed himself'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The subject of the sentence is 'Developmental activities' (plural),which is modified by the prepositional phrase 'of the government'. Therefore,the verb must agree with the plural subject 'activities'. However,the sentence implies a completed state or a recent occurrence,making the present perfect tense 'have come' more appropriate than the simple present 'come' to indicate that the activities have reached a standstill. Thus,the correct phrase is 'the government have come'.

(D) The sentence 'Of the two sisters,Meena is the elder' is grammatically correct. When comparing two people or things,the comparative degree of the adjective is used. Here,'elder' is the correct comparative form of 'old' used for members of the same family. Therefore,there is no error in the sentence.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The phrase '$I$ was to about' is grammatically incorrect. The correct idiomatic expression is '$I$ was about to',which indicates an action that was going to happen immediately. Therefore,the correct sentence should be: '$I$ was about to go out of my house when it suddenly started raining.'

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The preposition '$with$' is incorrect in this context. When referring to the time from which an action or payment starts,the correct preposition to use is '$from$'. Therefore,the phrase should be '$from$ this month'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The sentence describes a past event ('While Mahendra was away'),so the verb must be in the past tense. Therefore,'receive' should be replaced with 'received'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. The sentence uses the present tense 'can long endure' in the main clause,which indicates a general truth or a present condition. Therefore,the conditional clause should also be in the present tense. 'Were not' is past tense,so it should be replaced with 'are not' to maintain tense consistency.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The sentence uses the past tense '$went$' incorrectly in the context of a future expectation. Since the telegram is expected to inform him about a future action or decision,the correct verb form should be '$would go$' or '$should go$'. Therefore,the phrase '$whether he went or not$' should be corrected to '$whether he would go or not$'.

(A) The error lies in the segment '$A$'. The sentence refers to a future event ('during my next visit'). Therefore,the present simple tense '$I$ see you' is grammatically incorrect. It should be corrected to the future tense,such as '$I$ will see you' or '$I$ shall see you'.

(B) The error lies in the phrase $not have$.
In English grammar,the modal verb $ought$ is always followed by the infinitive $to$.
When expressing a past obligation or a moral duty that was not fulfilled,the correct construction is $ought not to have$.
Therefore,the correct sentence is: $He$ $ought$ $not$ $to$ $have$ $done$ $such$ $a$ $filthy$ $thing.$
Thus,the correction for the error in part $B$ is to add the word $to$.

(A) The error lies in part $A$ of the sentence. The phrase 'We have keep' is grammatically incorrect because the present perfect tense requires the past participle form of the verb. The correct form is 'We have kept'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. In a conditional sentence expressing a hypothetical past situation (third conditional),the 'if' clause must use the past perfect tense $(had + \text{past participle})$,not the conditional perfect $(would have + \text{past participle})$. Therefore,'if $I$ would have left' should be corrected to 'if $I$ had left'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The sentence describes a past event ('The last year proved'),so the verb must be in the past tense. Therefore,'witness' should be replaced with 'witnessed'. Additionally,'lot of' should be 'a lot of' or 'lots of' to be grammatically correct. The corrected part is 'witnessed a lot of problems'.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The word 'hardly' is an adverb meaning 'scarcely' or 'almost not',which changes the meaning of the sentence. The correct adverb to use here is 'hard',which means 'with great effort'. Therefore,'very hardly' should be replaced with 'very hard'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The phrase 'think ill to others' is grammatically incorrect. The correct idiomatic expression is 'think ill of others'. Therefore,the preposition 'to' should be replaced with 'of'.

(C) The error lies in part $C$. In a conditional clause referring to the future,the simple present tense is used instead of the future continuous tense. Therefore,'will be coming' should be replaced with 'come' or 'are coming' depending on the context. Given the structure,'come to Mumbai' is the most grammatically accurate correction.

(A) The error lies in part $A$. The sentence mentions the time reference '$yesterday$', which indicates a past action. Therefore, the present tense auxiliary '$have to$' is incorrect and should be replaced with the past tense form '$had to$'. The corrected sentence is: '$We$ $had$ $to$ $take$ $him$ $to$ $the$ $hospital$ $yesterday$ $because$ $he$ $was$ $suffering$ $from$ $fever.$'

(B) The error lies in part $B$ ('has seen'). The sentence contains the word 'yesterday',which indicates a completed action in the past. Therefore,the Simple Past tense should be used instead of the Present Perfect tense. The correct sentence is: 'He saw the picture yesterday.'

(D) The sentence is grammatically correct. The phrase "But for" is a standard idiomatic expression meaning "if it were not for" or "without". The structure "But for your kind help,this task could not have been completed" correctly uses the third conditional structure to express a past hypothetical situation. Therefore,there is no error in the sentence.

(B) The error lies in part $B$. The verb 'sang' is the past tense form of 'sing',whereas the present perfect tense requires the past participle form,which is 'sung'. Therefore,'has ever sang' should be corrected to 'has ever sung'.

(D) The error lies in part $D$. The sentence is in the past tense ('lost'),so the verb in the subordinate clause must also be in the past tense. Therefore,'says' should be replaced with 'was saying' or 'said' to maintain tense consistency.