All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Verbal Exam  >  Verbal Questions  >  Why should the candidates be afraid of Englis... Start Learning for Free
Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.
  • a)
    the candidates should be
  • b)
    do the candidates be
  • c)
    should be the candidates
  • d)
    are the candidates
  • e)
    No correction required
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a...
Why the candidates should be afraid of English Language is not clear.
This question is part of UPSC exam. View all Verbal courses
Most Upvoted Answer
Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a...
Explanation:
The given sentence is talking about candidates being afraid of the English language, and the question is about the correct use of the modal verb 'should' in this context. The correct option is A, which is "the candidates should be". Let's see why this is the correct option by breaking down the sentence:

Subject: the candidates
Verb: should be
Object: afraid of the English language

So, the correct sentence structure is "Subject + modal verb + adjective + preposition + object". Let's see why the other options are incorrect:

B) "Do the candidates be" - This option is incorrect because it uses the wrong auxiliary verb. The correct form would be "are the candidates".

C) "Should be the candidates" - This option is incorrect because it changes the order of the subject and the modal verb. The sentence structure should be "the candidates should be".

D) "Are the candidates" - This option is grammatically correct, but it changes the meaning of the sentence. The original sentence is talking about candidates being afraid of the English language, while option D is just asking for confirmation about the candidates.

E) "No correction required" - This option is incorrect because the original sentence has an error in the use of the modal verb "should".

In conclusion, the correct option is A because it follows the correct sentence structure and uses the appropriate modal verb to express a recommendation or obligation.
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:According to the passage, which of the following is most likely to be true of a political system with weak political parties?

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?

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?

Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for Verbal 2025 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect 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 Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Why should the candidates be afraid of English Language is not clear.a)the candidates should beb)do the candidates bec)should be the candidatesd)are the candidatese)No correction requiredCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup