Sentence Completion | MaargX UPSC | Rules, Examples & Practice Questions

Correction: 'Despite the rain…' — 'Despite' is a preposition that does not take 'of'. The correct preposition phrase is 'in spite of'. Since the sentence uses 'despite', 'of' must be removed entirely.

Rewritten: 'Despite her extensive experience, the interviewer did not shortlist her.'

Correction: 'committee has' — 'Committee' is a collective noun and is treated as singular in formal British and standard Indian English when acting as a unified body. Since the committee reached a unanimous decision (acting as one unit), the verb must be singular.

Rewritten: 'The committee has reached a unanimous decision.'

Correction: 'painting' — The correlative conjunction 'not only…but also' requires strict parallel grammatical structure. 'Excels at music' uses 'at + gerund/noun', so the second element must also use 'at + gerund'.

Rewritten: 'not only excels at music but also at painting landscapes.'

Correction: 'data suggest' — 'Data' is the plural form of 'datum'. In formal and academic usage, 'data' takes a plural verb. Note: In informal/conversational registers, 'data suggests' is accepted, but formal writing demands 'data suggest'.

Rewritten: 'The data clearly suggest that the intervention was unsuccessful.'

Correction: 'was asked' — 'Each' is always singular regardless of the noun phrase that follows it. The sentence structure 'Each of the [plural noun]' still takes a singular verb.

Rewritten: 'Each of the participants was asked to submit their individual report.'

Two errors: (1) 'Convince' is followed by 'of/that', not 'to + infinitive'; it is 'persuade' that takes 'to + infinitive'. (2) The split infinitive 'to not accept' is stylistically weak; 'not to accept' is preferred.

Rewritten: 'He persuaded her not to accept the offer without reading the terms.'

Correction: 'is attending' — Phrases like 'along with', 'as well as', 'together with', and 'in addition to' do not form a compound subject. The main subject remains 'manager' (singular), so the verb must be singular.

Rewritten: 'The manager, along with his entire team, is attending the conference.'

Correction: 'had been found' — 'By the time' followed by a past-tense verb ('arrived') requires the past perfect in the main clause. The discovery of survivors happened before the arrival of the rescue team — a sequence in the past demands past perfect.

Rewritten: 'By the time the rescue team arrived, three survivors had been found.'

'For the last decade' already implies duration from a past point to the present. Adding 'since she moved from abroad' further quantifies the same period, making the sentence redundant.

Corrected: 'She has been living in this city since she moved from abroad.' OR 'She has been living in this city for the last decade.'

Correction: 'is increasing' — 'The number of' is always singular. Compare with 'A number of' (= many) which takes a plural verb.

Rewritten: 'The number of applicants applying for the post is increasing every year.'

Correction: 'remain' — In the structure 'one of those [plural noun] who [verb]', the relative pronoun 'who' refers to the plural noun ('politicians'), not to 'one'. Therefore the verb must be plural.

Rewritten: 'He is one of the few politicians who remain uncorrupted by power.'

'Disinterested' means impartial or unbiased — a positive quality for a judge or mediator. The intended meaning here is that she had no interest in the proceedings, which requires 'uninterested'.

Corrected: 'Her lack of interest in the proceedings was evident…'

Correction: 'was submitted' — The subject of the sentence is 'The report' (singular). The relative clauses are parenthetical and do not affect the subject.

Rewritten: 'The report…was submitted to the board.'

Correction: 'were available' — With 'neither…nor', the verb agrees with the subject closest to it (the rule of proximity). The subject closest to the verb is 'the producers' (plural), so the verb must be plural.

Rewritten: 'Neither the director nor the producers were available for comment.'

Correction: 'have been replicated' — The subject is 'The results' (plural). The participial phrase 'conducted under strictly controlled conditions' is a modifier that does not change the number of the subject.

Rewritten: 'The results of the experiment…have been replicated three times.'

Here 'effect' is used as a verb meaning 'to bring about or produce' (e.g., 'effect a change'). This is a rare but correct usage. 'Affect' (b) is a verb meaning 'to influence', not to produce. 'Inflict' (c) means to impose something harmful. 'Evoke' (d) means to bring a feeling to mind — none of these fit 'settle a settlement'.

'Attributed to' means credited or assigned as a cause — exactly what the sentence requires (success credited to practice). 'Contributed to' (b) means she added to a cause, not that success was caused by it. 'Allotted' (c) and 'donated' (d) have entirely different semantic domains.

'Replete with' means filled or abundantly supplied with — the most precise fit for inconsistencies filling the testimony. 'Redundant' (b) means unnecessarily repetitive. 'Saturated' (c) is correct in meaning but collocates with liquids/markets, not statements. 'Excessive' (d) is an adjective and cannot follow 'was' + 'with' in this structure.

'Articulating complex theories' means expressing them clearly — precisely what the sentence describes. 'Fabricating' (b) means inventing falsely. 'Demonstrating' (c) is possible but implies showing/proving, not just expressing clearly. 'Eradicating' (d) means eliminating — entirely wrong.

All four options are negative reactions, but precision matters. 'Exasperation' is the most intense — deep frustration caused by repeated, unreasonable behaviour like constant interruption. 'Irritation' (a) is milder. 'Nuisance' (c) refers to the person or behaviour causing the problem, not the feeling it causes. 'Disturbance' (d) is more neutral and physical.

'Devastating' indicates the most severe and permanent harm — 'forcing many to shut down permanently' confirms this severity. 'Detrimental' (a) = harmful but not necessarily irreparable. 'Debilitating' (b) = weakening, more medical in register. 'Disruptive' (d) = causing disorder, not necessarily permanent harm.

A border demarcation agreement between two nations is specifically called a 'bilateral agreement' (involving two parties). 'Cordial' (a) describes tone. 'Tentative' (c) means provisional — would contradict 'finally reached'. 'Mutual' (d) is close but is an adjective of shared benefit, not the technical term for a two-party arrangement.

'Confident that' is the correct collocation when expressing certainty about a proposition. 'Convinced that' (a) is grammatically possible but implies someone persuaded them — the board reached this view independently. 'Assured' (c) usually takes 'of' not 'that'. 'Persuaded' (d) implies external pressure changed their view.

'Cogent' means powerfully convincing and logical — the best fit for an argument that is structurally strong but still fails to address a specific objection. 'Plausible' (b) = believable but not necessarily logical. 'Lucid' (c) = clearly expressed. 'Articulate' (d) = well-spoken. Only 'cogent' captures logical strength.

'Intended to bring about' correctly expresses purpose — the legislation's purpose is to produce changes. 'Designed to' (a) is also correct and very close, but 'intended' more naturally collocates with legislation and policy. 'Constructed to' (c) is engineering language. 'Aimed to' (d) requires 'at' not 'to': 'aimed at bringing'.

All four options suggest being unable to cope with volume, but 'overwhelmed by' is the most precise and formal for the context. 'Inundated' (b) usually collocates with communication (calls, emails). 'Swamped' (c) is informal. 'Buried' (d) is metaphorical and informal. The formal register of the sentence demands 'overwhelmed'.

'Surgical precision' is a fixed, widely accepted collocation meaning exact, careful, and targeted — perfectly capturing precision that prevents misinterpretation. 'Deliberate' (b) = intentional, not precise. 'Calculated' (c) = planned, often with a slightly negative connotation. 'Forensic' (d) = analytical and investigative, not precise in delivery.

'Enigmatic' means mysterious and puzzling in a way that resists full explanation — explaining why scholars disagreed for decades on authorship and date. 'Ambiguous' (a) = having multiple meanings. 'Cryptic' (b) = hidden or coded. 'Obscure' (c) = unknown or unclear. 'Enigmatic' captures the quality of being intriguingly difficult to understand.

'Galvanised' means shocked or stimulated into taking action — the crowd was moved from passivity to active demand. 'Persuaded' (b) = convinced through reasoning, too gentle for a crowd's collective action. 'Coerced' (c) = forced through threats — negative. 'Manipulated' (d) = influenced through deception — also negative.

All four options describe speech that causes strong reactions, but the key is degree and register. 'Inflammatory' specifically means designed to arouse anger and controversy in a public/media context — exactly what causes share price damage. 'Incendiary' (a) is more extreme (war/violence register). 'Controversial' (b) = debatable, not necessarily damaging. 'Provocative' (d) = challenging, not necessarily harmful.

In the structure 'one of those [plural noun] who [verb]', the relative pronoun 'who' refers to the plural noun 'leaders', not to 'one'. Therefore the verb must be plural: 'inspire'. (a) uses singular 'inspires' — wrong verb agreement. (c) incorrectly uses singular 'leader'. (d) uses the present participle 'inspiring' instead of a finite verb.

'Despite' is a preposition followed directly by a noun or noun phrase — never by 'of'. (a) incorrectly adds 'of'. (b) and (d) use 'raining' (a gerund/present participle) after 'despite', but 'rain' as a noun is what is required here — 'raining' makes the construction informal and imprecise. (c) is the only fully correct option.

'Since' indicates an action that began in the past and continues to the present, requiring the present perfect continuous: 'has been working'. (a) uses simple past 'worked' — incorrect with 'since' in the present-continuing sense. (c) uses present continuous 'is working' — cannot be used with 'since'. (d) past perfect continuous is used for an action before another past point, not for ongoing present relevance.

'planning, execution, and evaluation' — all three items are nouns, forming a perfectly parallel list. (a) breaks parallelism: noun, infinitive, noun. (b) breaks it: infinitive, gerund, noun. (d) has two forms: noun + two infinitives — inconsistent with the first noun.

The subject is 'bouquet' (singular noun); 'of roses' is a prepositional phrase modifying 'bouquet'. The verb must be singular: 'was'. (a) 'were' and (c) 'are' are plural — incorrect. (d) 'have been' is plural and uses the wrong time reference.

'Persuaded him to accept' is correct. 'Persuade' takes 'to + infinitive'. 'Convince' takes 'of' or 'that'. (a) uses 'convinced him to' — grammatically non-standard in formal usage. (c) 'convinced him that he should to accept' has the double error of wrong verb + 'should to'. (d) 'persuaded him that accepting' is a gerund construction that lacks a predicate.

Third conditional: 'If [past perfect], [would have + past participle]'. (a) incorrectly uses 'would have' in the if-clause — a classic error. (c) uses the base form 'study' and 'would passed' — both wrong. (d) uses simple past in the if-clause but past perfect in the main clause — mixing second and third conditional.

'The report that the board reviewed was approved' — restrictive relative clause using 'that' with no commas, correctly identifying which report. (a) incorrectly adds 'it' after 'reviewed' (double object). (c) uses 'that' inside commas — 'that' cannot introduce a non-restrictive clause. (d) again has 'it' creating a double object error.

Article rule: 'a' before consonant sounds; 'an' before vowel sounds. 'University' begins with the /j/ sound (consonant) → 'a university'. (a) 'an university' — wrong, /j/ is a consonant sound. (b) 'a honest' — 'honest' begins with silent 'h' → vowel sound /ɒ/ → requires 'an'. (c) 'an unanimous' — 'unanimous' begins with /j/ → requires 'a'.

'Neither…nor' requires the same grammatical form on both sides and correct inversion. (b) correctly uses 'neither respected…nor did he follow' with parallel structure. (a) breaks parallelism: 'respected' (verb) vs 'following' (gerund). (c) incorrectly omits 'did he'. (d) incorrectly front-loads 'neither' before the subject.

'Is being implemented' = present passive continuous, correctly conveying ongoing action. (b) uses 'implementing' after 'being' — wrong; past participle needed in passive. (c) omits the auxiliary verb entirely. (d) omits the main auxiliary 'is': 'being implemented' alone cannot function as the predicate.

The relationship is unexpected contrast (prepared but still failed). 'However' correctly signals this contrast. (a) 'furthermore' signals addition — wrong logic. (c) 'similarly' signals comparison — wrong. (d) 'consequently' signals result — the opposite of what happened.

Verbs like 'avoid', 'admit', 'consider', 'enjoy', 'deny', and 'practise' are followed by gerunds, not infinitives. 'Avoided going' is correct. (a) 'avoided to go' — wrong, infinitive after 'avoid' is not accepted. (c) 'avoided go' — missing 'to' and using base form. (d) 'avoided to going' — double error.

'That' introduces restrictive relative clauses (no commas); 'which' introduces non-restrictive relative clauses (with commas). (a) correctly uses 'that' (restrictive: identifying the specific laptop) AND 'which' inside commas (non-restrictive: adding information about the blue cover). (b) reverses the usage. (c) uses 'which' twice without commas — inconsistent. (d) incorrectly uses 'that' inside a comma-separated clause.

A participial phrase (modifier) must have the same subject as the main clause. 'Running quickly, the student missed the bus' — the student ran; the student missed the bus. Both actions share the same subject. (a) has a dangling modifier: 'Running quickly' refers to the bus, which cannot run. (c) creates a misplaced modifier. (d) is syntactically incoherent.

Rewritten: 'The new budget allocation has been approved by the board.'

Active subject 'the board' moves to an agent phrase after 'by'. Active object 'the new budget allocation' becomes the passive subject. The tense 'has approved' (present perfect active) becomes 'has been approved' (present perfect passive). The past participle 'approved' is retained; the auxiliary changes from 'has' to 'has been'.

'What she said at the meeting' is a nominal clause (also called a noun clause). It functions as the subject of the main verb 'surprised'. It is introduced by the relative/interrogative 'what' (meaning 'the thing that') and contains its own subject ('she') and verb ('said'). It cannot be removed without destroying the sentence, which confirms its essential role as the subject.

Error 1: 'have submitted' → 'had submitted' — The time marker 'by yesterday' indicates a completed action before a past reference point, requiring the past perfect.

Error 2: 'Each' is singular and grammatically takes a singular verb: 'has submitted' (not 'have submitted').

Fully corrected: 'Each of the managers had submitted his or her individual plan by yesterday.'

Combined: 'Although the company made record profits, employee salaries remained stagnant.'

The logical relationship is concession or contrast — a positive outcome (profits) exists simultaneously with an unexpected negative reality (stagnant salaries). 'Although' correctly signals this: the first clause concedes a positive fact, the second introduces the surprising contrasting reality.

Alternative: 'Despite making record profits, the company kept employee salaries stagnant.'

The sentence structure 'in theory but _______ in practice' demands a contrast pair. Option (a) — 'sound in theory' (logically correct) but 'impractical in practice' (fails in reality) — is a perfect logical contrast. (b) 'flawed / excellent' reverses the usual logic. (c) 'innovative / redundant' — an innovative approach cannot simultaneously be redundant in practice. (d) 'bold / similar' — 'similar' is not a meaningful contrast to 'bold'.

Error: 'Having read the report' implies the subject read the report, but the grammatical subject of the main clause is 'the decision' — a decision cannot read a report. This is a classic dangling modifier.

Corrected version 1: 'Having read the report, I found the decision seemed straightforward.'

Corrected version 2: 'After reading the report, the committee found the decision straightforward.'

Rule: The participial phrase and main clause must share the same logical subject.

(1) 'sweeping changes' — the collocation 'sweeping changes' is standard for large-scale societal transformation.

(2) 'migrated' — workers moving from rural to urban areas = internal migration; carries the necessary directional scale.

(3) 'dire / deplorable' — the passage's negative tone and the contrast with rising productivity demands a strongly negative descriptor for living conditions.

(4) 'cost' — 'came at a significant human cost' is a fixed collocation meaning sacrifice or price paid in human terms.

Error 1 (Comma splice): 'The committee are confident…' and 'they have enough evidence' are two independent clauses joined only by a comma — this is a comma splice.

Error 2 (Agreement): 'The committee are confident' — 'committee' as a unified body takes a singular verb: 'The committee is confident'.

Corrected: 'The committee is confident that it will announce its decision by tomorrow, as it has gathered sufficient evidence.'

The sentence 'By next month, she will complete fifteen years' is incorrect. 'By next month' indicates that the action will be completed before a specific future point — this requires the future perfect tense.

Correct version: 'By next month, she will have completed fifteen years in this organisation.'

'Will complete' (simple future) describes an action that will happen at or around next month, not one that will be finished before it. The future perfect 'will have completed' correctly captures the completed-before-a-future-point meaning.

Concise version: 'Because the weather was unfavourable, the organisers decided to postpone the outdoor event.'

Redundancies removed:

(1) 'Due to the fact that' → 'Because' (five words reduced to one).

(2) 'quite unfavourable and inclement' → 'unfavourable' ('inclement' means the same as 'unfavourable weather' — tautology; 'quite' adds nothing).

(3) 'made a final decision to postpone' → 'decided to postpone' ('final' is implied by deciding; 'make a decision' is wordy for 'decide').

'Imply' is used by the speaker or source: to suggest something without stating it directly. The subject is the communicator.

'Infer' is used by the listener or reader: to draw a conclusion from evidence. The subject is the receiver.

Sentence A: 'The report implies that safety procedures were ignored.' — The report (source) is suggesting/hinting.

Sentence B: 'From the evidence, investigators inferred that the accident was preventable.' — Investigators (receivers of evidence) drew a conclusion.

Rule: Restrictive relative clauses — those that define or limit the noun and are essential to the meaning — use 'that' (no commas). Non-restrictive relative clauses — those that add optional extra information — use 'which' (with commas).

'Which are mandatory for all employees' defines and restricts which guidelines must be followed — it is essential information, so 'that' is required.

Corrected: 'The guidelines that are mandatory for all employees must be followed without exception.'

Combined: 'The scientist published a groundbreaking study that challenged decades of accepted theory.'

Clause type used: Restrictive relative clause, introduced by 'that'. It is restrictive because it defines and identifies which specific study is being discussed — without it, the sentence would be incomplete in meaning. No commas are used because the clause is essential. If the clause were non-restrictive (adding extra, optional information), 'which' and commas would be used instead.

Error 1: 'clearly demonstrates' → 'clearly demonstrate'. The subject is 'findings' (plural). The long intervening phrase 'of the three-year study, conducted by a team of internationally recognised researchers' modifies 'findings' but does not change its number.

Error 2: 'exercise reduce' → 'exercise reduces' — 'regular exercise' is an uncountable singular noun acting as subject.

Corrected: 'The findings of the three-year study…clearly demonstrate that regular exercise reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease significantly.'

Sentence A: 'It is I who am responsible for the error.' — This follows the formal prescriptive rule: in formal English, the complement of 'be' (the part after 'it is') should be in the nominative (subject) case — hence 'I', not 'me'. The verb 'am' then correctly agrees with 'I'.

Sentence B: 'It is me who is responsible' uses 'me' (object case) — technically incorrect by prescriptive grammar, but widely used in informal spoken English, where 'me' functions as a predicate pronoun.

In most contexts, Sentence B sounds more natural but is considered informal. For formal writing, legal documents, or high-precision usage, Sentence A is correct. This reflects the ongoing tension between prescriptive grammar and descriptive reality in modern English.