All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  It were the children (A) / that caused a lot ... Start Learning for Free
It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)
  • a)
    It were the children 
  • b)
    that caused a lot of problem to their parents
  • c)
    during long bus journey.
  • d)
    no error
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their paren...
The correct sentence should be "It was the children that caused a lot of problem to their parents during the long bus journey." Here, "were" should be replaced with "was" as the subject "It" is singular.

Explanation:

Subject-Verb Agreement:
The subject "It" is singular, so the verb "were" should be replaced with "was".

Use of Articles:
The article "the" should be added before "long bus journey" as it is a specific journey that the children and parents took together.

Placement of Adjective:
The adjective "long" should be placed before the noun "bus journey" to indicate the duration of the journey.

Corrected Sentence:
It was the children that caused a lot of problem to their parents during the long bus journey.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their paren...
Why a??
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Read the following passages carefully and answer the questions that follow.Passage IIt is generally acknowledged that children learn a lot from their parents. It is not so commonly admitted that parents learn a great deal from their children. As adults, it is easy to assume that we are always right, but the laugh was at me one beautiful day. My daughter Kashmira knew how much I loved flowers. One day when she was of nine years, she picked some branches from our neighbors blossoming fruit tree. Realizing she intended to please me, I didnt scold her but chose a different approach.These are lovely, dear, but do you realize that, if you had left them on the tree, each of these blossoms would have become a cherry? No, they wouldnt have, she said firmly. Oh, yes, they would have. Each of these blossoms would have grown into a cherry*. Well okay, mother, if you insist, she finally conceded, but they were plums last year.Q. What is not commonly acknowledged is that

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children. The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotlan d) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective. In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?”The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q.As per the passage, what is the purpose of rule of “reasonable chastisement”?

The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotlan d) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q. As per the passage, what is the purpose of rule of “reasonable chastisement”?

The Scottish Parliament has passed a law criminalizing physical punishment to children.The bill, titled as Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotlan d) Bill, intends to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement, i.e. a common law rule that the physical punishment of a child in the exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of the child is justifiable and is therefore not an assault.Section 51 (physical punishment of children) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 will also be repealed when the law comes into force. The main provision of the Act will come into force on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent.The Minister for Children and Young People Maree Todd, during the debate in the parliament said, “The removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement will help to ensure that that goal can be achieved. The bill places Scotland in the vanguard in the UK in providing children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. That is the kind of country that I want my children to grow up in. The Scottish Government supports the removal of the defence. It’s very name—reasonable chastisement—is outdated and unconscionable. It suggests that it is sometimes acceptable to hit a child, which is at odds with the Scottish Governments aim of helping children to grow up feeling safe. It is also at odds with the international evidence that shows that the physical punishment of children is harmful and ineffective.In line with that international evidence, many countries have already changed their laws in that area, in ways that are appropriate to their legal systems. By removing the reasonable chastisement defence, we will provide children with the same legal protection from assault as adults. Why would we not want that for our children?” The minister also clarified that removal of the defence does not impact the ability of a parent to use restraint to prevent their child from coming to harm. "At its heart, restraint is an act of protection. Physical punishment is an act of discipline. They are fundamentally different.” she said.Section 51 of the 2003 Act limited the common law rule by prohibiting hitting a child with an implement, hitting them on the head, or shaking them. It also put into statute common law principles about the factors a court must have regard to when considering whether an assault on a child, in exercise of a parental right or a right derived from having charge or care of a child, was justifiable.Q. As per the passage, what is the main aim of passing this law?

Each year, thousands of children die worldwide and the childhoods and development of millions more are scarred by harmful practices perpetrated by parents, relatives, religious and community leaders and other adults.Violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices, but the common characteristic of the violations is that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.Many identified practices involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and discrimination against children with disabilities. The practices are based on tradition and/or superstition, religious belief, false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain, leading in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury. Others involve mental violence. All are an assault on the child’s human dignity and violate universally agreed international human rights standards.The continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a devastating failure of human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.Harmful practices are often committed against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, either by parents directly, or by others with parents’ consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern”.The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent.Q. Which of these is true with respect to the government and child rights?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice It were the children (A) / that caused a lot of problem to their parents(B) / during long bus journey.(C) / no error(D)a)It were the childrenb)that caused a lot of problem to their parentsc)during long bus journey.d)no errorCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

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