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  >  We have interviewed with twenty candidates fo... Start Learning for Free
We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.
  • a)
    most
  • b)
    neither
  • c)
    much
  • d)
    none
  • e)
    no
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, bu...
We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but none of them was actually a good fit.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, bu...
Answer:

Explanation:

To find the correct answer, we need to understand the meaning of each option and determine which one fits the given context.

Option A: most
The word "most" implies a majority or a large number. However, the sentence doesn't provide any information about the number or proportion of candidates that were a good fit. Therefore, option A cannot be the correct answer.

Option B: neither
The word "neither" is used when referring to two things or people. In this sentence, we have interviewed twenty candidates, so it is not appropriate to use "neither" to describe the number of good fits. Option B is incorrect.

Option C: much
The word "much" is used to describe quantity or degree. However, in this context, we are looking for a specific number of candidates who were a good fit, not a general measurement. Therefore, option C is not the correct answer.

Option D: none
The word "none" means zero or no amount. In the given sentence, it is stated that "none of them was actually a good fit." This implies that out of the twenty candidates interviewed, not a single one was a good fit for the vacant position. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

Option E: no
The word "no" is used to indicate the absence or lack of something. In this sentence, the phrase "no good fit" implies that there were no candidates who met the requirements of the vacant position. Therefore, option E can also be considered correct, but option D is a more precise answer.

In conclusion, the correct answer is option D, "none".
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: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?

We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice We have interviewed with twenty candidates for the vacant position, but ---- of them was actually a good fit.a)mostb)neitherc)muchd)nonee)noCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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