Sentence Improvement Questions and Answers

Answer: D

The word that can replace the underlined segment 'a scientist who specialises in insects' is 'entomologist'. An entomologist is a scientist who studies insects, which is just what the underlined words describe.

An endocrinologist studies the glands and hormones, an orthopaedic doctor deals with bones and joints (the adjective orthopaedic is also not a noun for a person), and a urologist deals with the urinary system. None of them studies insects, so the fourth option is correct.

Answer: A

The word that can replace the underlined word 'places' is 'worlds'. The expression is 'the best of both worlds', which means getting the advantages of two different things at once. 'Places' is wrong because the fixed idiom uses worlds.

'Choices' and 'dishes' do not form an idiom with 'best of both', and 'No substitution required' is wrong because the sentence as given, with 'places', is not the idiom. The first option is the answer.

Answer: C

The correct option is 'Reena was crying because my mother had scolded her.'

'Though' shows contrast, but being scolded is the reason for crying, not a contrast. 'Because' gives the cause.

'Although' repeats the wrong contrast, 'unless' means 'if not' and 'both ... and' is ungrammatical here.

The error is the use of 'though'. The mother's scolding is the cause of the crying, so the cause word 'because' is required. 'Unless' means 'if not', and 'both my mother and scolded her' is not a clause at all.

Answer: C

The correct form is 'No sooner did we arrive'. After 'did' the main verb takes its base form, so 'did we arrived' repeats the past tense and is wrong. 'No sooner did we arrives' adds a third person ending that does not fit 'we'. 'No sooner had we arrive' mixes 'had' with a base verb, which is also wrong. The underlined segment needs correcting, so 'No substitution required' is not right. 'No sooner' is followed by the inverted verb and then 'than', and the sentence 'No sooner did we arrive at the station than we got into an argument' keeps that pattern with a single past marker.

Answer: B

The correct form is 'is burnt'. The sentence states a general truth in the present: toxic chemicals 'is released' (with 'a complex weave' as subject), so the clause with 'When' needs the present form, 'When plastic waste is burnt'. 'Was burnt' is a past tense that clashes with the present. 'Were burnt' and 'are burnt' use plural verbs, but 'plastic waste' is treated as singular here. The same sentence with the corrected clause reads 'When plastic waste is burnt, a complex weave of toxic chemicals is released', in which both verbs are in the present tense.

Answer: C

The correct replacement is Increase in productivity necessarily.

The corrected sentence reads 'Increase in productivity necessarily reflects greater efforts made by the employees.' The subject is the noun phrase increase in productivity, and the adverb necessarily modifies the verb reflects.

The original uses the adjective necessary where an adverb is needed. The first option keeps that error, and the second turns the subject into a separate clause ('is necessary') that leaves 'reflects' without a subject. Since the sentence needs correcting, 'No improvement required' is wrong.

Answer: C

The correctly punctuated version is Even though it was late - almost midnight - she continued reading her book, unable to put it down, knowing that she would regret staying up so late.

Almost midnight is an aside that interrupts the sentence, so it is set off by a matching pair of dashes. The two participial phrases, unable to put it down and knowing that..., are each separated by commas from the main clause.

The first option opens the aside with a comma and closes it with a dash, an unmatched pair. The second adds words that were not in the sentence, when her alarm rang at 6 a.m., so it is not the same sentence. The last uses a colon before almost midnight, which does not introduce an explanation here, and leaves no comma before unable.

Answer: A

The correction is was discovered.

The sentence is in the past ('It was of utmost importance'), and the rebuilding came after an earlier past event, the discovery. The verb must be a past passive: 'after the felony was discovered'.

'Is discover' is ungrammatical, 'is discovered' is in the present and clashes with 'was', and 'will be discovered' puts the discovery in the future, which contradicts the sequence of events.

Answer: D

The answer is No improvement: Had I realised how close I was to the precipice, I would not have taken that step.

This is a third conditional about an unreal past. Its normal form is If I had realised..., I would not have taken.... English allows the if to be dropped by inverting the subject and auxiliary: Had I realised means exactly If I had realised. The sentence is already correct.

If I would have realised wrongly puts would in the if-clause. Had I been realised is a meaningless passive, and If I realised is the second-conditional tense, which does not match would not have taken.

Answer: A

The improvement is You, he and I.

The conventional order of personal pronouns in a series of subjects is the 2-3-1 rule: second person (you), then third person (he, she, they), then first person (I) last, as a matter of courtesy. So He, you, and I becomes You, he and I.

I, you and he puts the speaker first. You, I and he breaks the order by placing the first person before the third. (When the sentence admits a fault, some grammars put I first, but this question follows the standard 2-3-1 order.)