Fill in the Blanks Questions and Answers

Answer: A

The answer is at, in: Look at the sportsman in the picture, who is he?

The verb look takes at before the thing being looked at. Something shown within a picture, photograph or painting is in it: the man in the photo.

Look on means to watch without taking part, and on the picture would mean on its surface, like a mark. Look in means to look inside something, and at the picture would describe the position of the sportsman next to it.

Answer: C

The answer is in: You may write in ink.

When naming the medium or material of writing, English uses in: write in ink, in pencil, in capitals, in English.

With goes with the instrument rather than the medium: write with a pen. By and on are not used with ink in this sense; one writes on paper.

Answer: A

The answer is with: They will be extremely vexed with me.

Vexed (annoyed) takes with before a person and at or about before a thing: vexed with someone, vexed at the delay.

Since the object here is a person, me, with is correct. Vexed of and vexed from are not used. At is the near-miss, but it belongs with a situation, not a person.

Answer: D

The answer is up: She was able to conjure up the spirits of the dead.

Conjure up is a phrasal verb meaning to call up a spirit by magic, or more loosely to bring something to mind: the music conjured up memories of home. (The paper prints sprits for spirits.)

Conjure for, conjure upon and conjure on are not idiomatic. The old use conjure alone (to appeal to someone solemnly) does not fit this sentence either.

Answer: B

The answer is for: Paul always had a knack for a good story.

A knack is a natural skill or talent, and it takes for (a knack for languages) or, in an older pattern, of before a verb in -ing (a knack of making friends).

Before a noun phrase like a good story, for is the natural choice. Knack with and knack at are not standard.

Answer: C

The correct option is One another: He and his four brothers love one another very much.

Traditional grammar uses each other for two persons and one another for more than two. Here there are five brothers, so one another is the expected form.

Each other is the two-person form in that rule, which is why it is the near miss. Some other and all another are not reciprocal pronouns and do not make grammatical sentences here.

Answer: A

The correct word is Lightning: plenty of thunder and lightning.

Lightning is the flash of electricity in the sky during a storm, the natural partner of thunder in the fixed phrase thunder and lightning.

Lightening is the present participle of lighten, meaning making lighter in weight or colour, so it is a common misspelling here. Roaring and thundering describe sound, and thunder has already supplied the sound in the sentence.

Answer: B

The correct option is Can: He can scarcely see in this light.

Scarcely is a negative adverb meaning 'almost not', so the sentence needs a positive verb with it: can scarcely see means he is almost unable to see.

Can't and could not would put a second negative beside scarcely, a double negative that is wrong in standard English. Only leaves the sentence without a verb to govern see.

Answer: D

The correct option is Much: Neelima is much cleverer than Savita.

A comparative adjective such as cleverer is intensified with much, far or a lot: much taller, far better.

More cannot be added because cleverer is already comparative, and more cleverer is a double comparative. Very modifies the positive degree (very clever), not the comparative. Positively does not combine with a comparative in this way.

Answer: A

The correct pair is Lose, get: It is better to keep one's head in the face of danger than lose one's courage and get panicky.

After It is better to ... than, the second part takes the same bare infinitive form as the first: better to keep ... than (to) lose ... and (to) get. The idioms lose one's courage and get panicky fit the sense.

Losing, getting breaks the parallel structure. Quell (suppress) and bemoan (lament) do not fit the meaning, and look out for, dispel being makes no sense in the sentence.