A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Verbal Exam > Verbal Questions > A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position ...

Join the Discussion on the App

A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.

B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.

C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.

D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.

a)
D only
b)
A and B
c)
A , B and C
d)
B and D

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Syste...

Option D eliminates the redundancy of the position and post of the word. So, the sentence: She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager Systems, is the correct answer.

This question is part of UPSC exam. View all Verbal courses

Most Upvoted Answer

A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Syste...

*A and B are not apt.Since promoted to implicitly mean a post or position promotion.So there is no need of specifying it explicitly,while C and D are correct , but D sounds more Good

Community Answer

A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Syste...

Explanation:

Objective: To identify the grammatically correct sentence from the given options.

Given Options:
A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.
B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.
C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.
D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.

Analysis:
To determine the correct sentence, we need to consider the rules of grammar and sentence structure.

Option A: In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.
This sentence is grammatically correct. It uses the correct preposition "to" to indicate the position she was promoted to. The word order is also correct.

Option B: She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.
This sentence is not grammatically correct. It uses the incorrect preposition "to" before "a General Manager, Systems post." The correct preposition should be "to" before the position, not "to" before the post.

Option C: She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.
This sentence is grammatically correct. It uses the correct preposition "to" to indicate the position she was promoted to. The word order is also correct.

Option D: She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.
This sentence is not grammatically correct. It does not include the article "a" before "General Manager, Systems." The correct sentence should include the indefinite article "a" before the position.

Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, the only grammatically correct sentence among the given options is "A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems."

Share via Whatsapp

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals. The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly.If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Q.Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the authors claim about single-term political systems?

View answer

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s.Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals.The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly. If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of a political system with weak political parties?

View answer

Henry Varnum Poor, editor of American Railroad Journal, drew the important elements of the image of the railroad together in 1851, Look at the results of this material progress...the vigor, life, and executive energy that followed in its train, rapidly succeeded by wealth, the refinement and intellectual culture of a high civilization. All this is typified, in a degree, by a locomotive. The combination in its construction of nice art and scientific application of power, its speed surpassing that of our proudest courser, and its immense strength, are all characteristic of our age and tendencies. To us, like the telegraph, it is essential, it constitutes a part of our nature, is a condition of our being what we are.In the third decade of the nineteenth century, Americans began to define their character in light of the new railroads. They liked the idea that it took special people to foresee and capitalize on the promise of science. Railroad promoters, using the steam engine as a metaphor for what they thought Americans were and what they thought Americans were becoming, frequently discussed parallels between the locomotive and national character, pointing out that both possessed youth, power, speed, single-mindedness, and bright prospects.Poor was, of course, promoting acceptance of railroads and enticing his readers to open their pocketbooks. But his metaphors had their dark side. A locomotive was quite unlike anything Americans had ever seen. It was large, mysterious and dangerous; many thought that it was a monster waiting to devour the unwary. There was a suspicion that a country founded upon Jeffersonian agrarian principles had bought a ticket and boarded a train pulled by some iron monster into the dark recesses of an unknown future. To ease such public apprehensions, promoters, poets, editors, and writers alike adopted the notion that locomotives were really only iron horses, an early metaphor that lingered because it made steam technology ordinary and understandable. Iron horse metaphors assuaged fears about inherent defects in the national character, prompting images of a more secure future, and made an alien technology less frightening, and even comforting and congenial.Essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson saw the locomotive as an agent of domestic harmony. He observed that the locomotive and the steamboat, like enormous shuttles, shoot every day across the thousand various threads of national descent and employment and bind them fast in one web,adding an hourly assimilation goes forward, and there is no danger that local peculiarities and hostilities should be preserved. To us Americans, it seems to have fallen as a political aid. We could not else have held the vast North America together, which we now engage to do.Direction: Read the above Paragraph and answer the follownig QuetionsQ.Which of the following claims would the author of the passage most agree with?

View answer

While many points are worth making in an evaluation of the single sixyear presidential term, one of the most telling points against the single term has not been advanced. This kind of constitutional limitation on elections is generally a product of systems with weak or non-existent political parties.Since there is no party continuity or corporate party integrity in such systems, there is no basis for putting trust in the desire for re-election as a safeguard against mismanagement in the executive branch. Better under those conditions to operate on the basis of negative assumptions against incumbents. I do not know if the earliest proposal for a single, nonrepeatable term was made in the 1820s because that was a period of severely weak political parties. But I do feel confident that this is a major reason, if not the only reason, that such a proposal has been popular since the 1940s. Though the association of the non-repeatable election with weak political parties is not in itself an argument against the limitation, the fallout from this association does contribute significantly to the negative argument. Single-term limitations are strongly associated with corruption. In any weak party system, including the presidential system, the onus of making deals and compromises, both shady and honourable, rests heavily upon individual candidates. Without some semblance of corporate integrity in a party, individual candidates have few opportunities to amortize their obligations across the spectrum of elective and appointive jobs and policy proposals.The deals tend to be personalized and the payoffs come home to roost accordingly. If that situation is already endemic in conditions of weak or nonexistent parties, adding to it the limitation against re-election means that candidates and officials, already prevented from amortizing their deals across space, are also unable to amortize their obligations temporally. This makes for a highly beleaguered situation. The single six-year term for presidents is an effort to compensate for the absence of a viable party system, but it is a compensation ultimately paid for by further weakening the party system itself.Observers, especially foreign observers, have often noted that one source of weakness in American political parties is the certainty of election every two or four years, not only because any artificial limitation on elections is a violation of democratic principles but also because when elections are set in a certain and unchangeable cycle, political parties do not have to remain alert but can disappear into inactivity until a known point prior to the next election. To rigidify matters by going beyond the determinacy of the electoral cycle to add an absolute rule of one term would hang still another millstone around the neck of already doddering political parties. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following:Suppose that America adopted a single-term political system. Considering the foreign observers mentioned in the passage. how would they be expected to respond to such a development?

View answer

The manager would like you to help Dhiraj, means ......

View answer

A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2024 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Verbal. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Verbal Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A. In 2009, she was promoted to the position of General Manager, Systems.B. She was promoted in 2009 to a General Manager, Systems post.C. She was promoted to a General Manager, Systems position in 2009.D. She was promoted in 2009 to General Manager, Systems.a)D onlyb)A and Bc)A , B and Cd)B and DCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.

Explore Courses for Verbal exam