All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hai... Start Learning for Free
 But when I _______ (leave) school I cut my hair and worn it short ever since. 
Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CAT doubts with EduRev
Verified Answer
But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever si...
"Left" is the correct answer because it is the past tense form of the verb "leave." In this sentence, the verb "leave" is being used to describe an action that happened in the past, specifically when the speaker graduated from school. Therefore, the past tense form of the verb, "left," is used to indicate that the action occurred in the past.
The past tense is used to describe actions or events that have already happened. It is typically formed by adding -ed to regular verbs or by using a special form for irregular verbs. In this case, "leave" is an irregular verb, and the past tense form is "left."

View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever si...
**Explanation:**

The correct answer is "left".

In the given sentence, the word "left" is used to indicate the action of leaving school. It is the past tense form of the verb "leave". Let's break down the sentence to understand it better:

**Subject:** I
**Verb:** left
**Object:** school

The action of leaving school is mentioned in the past, so the past tense form of the verb "leave" is used. The word "left" correctly matches the subject "I" and the past tense context of the sentence.

It is important to note that in English, verbs have different forms depending on the tense they are used in. "Leave" is an irregular verb, which means it does not follow the regular pattern of adding "ed" to form the past tense. Instead, it changes its form to "left" in the past tense.

Using the correct form of the verb is essential for maintaining grammatical accuracy and conveying the intended meaning. In this case, using "leave" instead of "left" would create a grammatical error because it would not match the past tense context of the sentence.

To summarize, in the sentence "But when I left school, I cut my hair and worn it short ever since," the correct form of the verb "leave" is "left" as it matches the past tense context of the sentence.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?Rupert Murdoch and his views showcase that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it, that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?All of the following can be inferred from the passage except

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?The author is most likely to agree with all of the following statements EXCEPT.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?The author of the passage uses the statistic published by Daily Mail in order to:(refer to the last paragraph of the passag e)

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?The primary purpose of the author of the passage is

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice But when I _______ (leave) school Icut my hair andwornit short ever since.Correct answer is 'left'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
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