Test: Modal Verb- 1 - Primary 2 MCQ

The correct answer is D: were able to.
Explanation:
After the voyaging ship was wrecked during a storm at sea, only two of the men on board were able to swim to the small island nearby. Let's break down the options to understand why option D is the correct answer:
A: might
- This option suggests uncertainty and does not indicate that the two men actually succeeded in swimming to the island. It implies a possibility but does not confirm their ability to swim to safety.
B: were supposed to
- This option implies an expectation or obligation for the men to swim to the island, but it does not indicate whether they actually managed to do so. It suggests a plan or intention rather than their actual ability.
C: could
- This option indicates the potential ability of the men to swim to the island, but it does not confirm whether they were successful or not. It implies a possibility but does not provide a definite answer.
D: were able to
- This option states that the two men on board were successful in swimming to the small island nearby. It confirms their ability to swim and reach safety.
E: had to
- This option suggests that the two men had no choice but to swim to the small island nearby, but it does not indicate whether they actually managed to do so. It implies necessity but does not confirm their ability to swim to safety.
Therefore, the correct answer is D: were able to, as it clearly states that only two men managed to swim to the small island nearby.

To solve this question, we need to determine the correct option that fits the sentence and conveys the intended meaning. Let's analyze each option:
A: "was supposed to"
- This option suggests an obligation or expectation, but it doesn't match the context of the sentence. The sentence doesn't imply any obligation or expectation.
B: "was to"
- This option is grammatically incorrect. The verb "to be" should be followed by a present participle (-ing form) in order to express an ongoing action.
C: "was used to"
- This option correctly conveys the meaning that the person is accustomed to or familiar with working alone. It implies that working alone during the night shift is not a problem because the person is used to it.
D: "would"
- This option suggests a conditional action or hypothetical situation, which doesn't fit the context of the sentence. The sentence doesn't indicate any conditions or hypothetical scenarios.
E: "used to"
- This option is grammatically incorrect. The correct form is "was used to" to express past habitual actions.
Therefore, the correct answer is C: "was used to" as it accurately conveys that the person is accustomed to working alone during the night shift and doesn't get bored.

Explanation:
The correct answer is C: shouldn't have taken.
Here's the breakdown of why:
- The sentence is in the past tense, so we need to use the past modal verbs.
- The action of Martin taking the tennis racket without permission happened in the past, so we need to use a past modal verb to express that it was not the right thing to do.
- Let's analyze the options:
A: needn't have taken - This means that Martin took the tennis racket, but it was not necessary for him to do so. This does not convey the idea of him doing something wrong or against the speaker's wishes.
B: must not have taken - This means that it is certain that Martin did not take the tennis racket. This does not match the meaning of the sentence, as the speaker clearly states that Martin took the racket without permission.
C: shouldn't have taken - This is the correct answer. It conveys the idea that Martin took the tennis racket, but it was not the right thing for him to do. It matches the meaning of the sentence and expresses the speaker's anger.
D: didn't need to taken - This means that Martin did not need to take the tennis racket, but it does not convey the idea that he took it without permission.
E: might not have taken - This means that it is possible that Martin did not take the tennis racket. It does not match the meaning of the sentence, as the speaker clearly states that he did take it.
In conclusion, the correct answer is C: shouldn't have taken, as it accurately conveys the idea that Martin took the tennis racket without permission and expresses the speaker's anger.

Explanation:

The given sentence states that intervening was not a good idea and suggests an alternative approach to help the child abandon the habit of thumb-sucking gradually. The correct answer choice is option E, "could have allowed". Here's why:

• Option A, "have allowed": This phrase implies that the parent allowed the child to abandon the habit, but it doesn't convey the idea of gradual abandonment. It also doesn't address the fact that the child should have done it by himself.


• Option B, "had allowed": This phrase suggests that the parent allowed the child in the past, but it doesn't indicate the possibility of gradual abandonment or the child doing it by himself.


• Option C, "must have allowed": This phrase implies a strong possibility or certainty that the parent allowed the child, but it doesn't convey the idea of gradual abandonment or the child doing it by himself.


• Option D, "were able to allow": This phrase suggests that the parent had the ability to allow the child, but it doesn't indicate the possibility of gradual abandonment or the child doing it by himself.


• Option E, "could have allowed": This phrase expresses the idea that the parent had the option or possibility to allow the child, and it also implies gradual abandonment and the child taking responsibility for stopping the habit. This aligns with the given information and is the correct answer.

Therefore, option E, "could have allowed", is the most appropriate choice in this context.

To determine the correct answer, let's analyze the given options:
A: may get - This option suggests a possibility, but it does not imply that Peter is lost.
B: could get - This option also suggests a possibility, but it does not provide any specific information about Peter being lost.
C: must have got - This option implies certainty, which is not suitable in this context as we are discussing a possibility.
D: might have got - This option suggests a possibility, which aligns with the uncertainty expressed in the question. It implies that Peter might be lost.
E: was to have got - This option refers to a past plan or intention, but it does not address the question of Peter being lost.
Based on the analysis, the correct answer is option D: might have got. This option conveys the uncertainty of Peter's situation, suggesting that he might be lost.

To determine the correct option, let's analyze the given sentence:
"I don't know why she didn't ask me how to do it as I ____ her."
The missing word in the sentence should express the speaker's ability or possibility to help the person mentioned.
Option A: must have helped
- This option indicates a strong probability or certainty that the speaker helped the person. However, the sentence doesn't provide any evidence to support this assumption.
Option B: could have helped
- This option suggests that the speaker had the ability or possibility to help the person. It fits well in the sentence, indicating that the speaker is puzzled as to why the person didn't ask for their assistance.
Option C: might help
- This option implies a possibility of helping the person, but it doesn't match the tense and context of the sentence.
Option D: should have helped
- This option suggests an obligation or expectation to help the person, but it doesn't convey the idea that the speaker had the ability to help.
Option E: could help
- This option indicates the speaker's current ability to help the person, but it doesn't align with the context of the sentence, which refers to a past event.
Considering the analysis above, Option B: could have helped is the most suitable choice, as it expresses the speaker's ability or possibility to help the person in the past.

To determine the correct answer, let's analyze the two blanks separately:
1. First blank:
- Option A: "might have happened" - This phrase indicates a possibility in the past, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option B: "should have happened" - This phrase indicates an expectation in the past, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option C: "may happen" - This phrase indicates a possibility in the present or future, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option D: "would happen" - This phrase indicates a hypothetical situation, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option E: "can have happened" - This phrase indicates a possibility in the past, which fits the context of the sentence. It implies that something could have happened to Phil.
2. Second blank:
- Option A: "will be" - This phrase indicates a future event, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option B: "has been" - This phrase indicates a past event, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option C: "will have been" - This phrase indicates a future event that will be completed before a specific time in the future, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option D: "is" - This phrase indicates a present event, but it doesn't fit the context of the sentence.
- Option E: "would be" - This phrase indicates a hypothetical situation in the present or future, which fits the context of the sentence. It implies that Phil would be at the specified location at eight o'clock.
Therefore, the correct answer is option E: "can have happened / would be."

To solve this question, we need to determine the correct verb forms to complete the sentence correctly. Here's a breakdown of the given options:
Option A: is / had heard
- This option uses the present tense "is" and the past perfect tense "had heard."
- However, the use of the past perfect tense does not fit logically in the sentence.
- The past perfect tense is usually used to indicate an action that happened before another past action, but there is no clear indication of a past action in the sentence.
Option B: can be / heard
- This option uses the modal verb "can be" and the simple past tense "heard."
- The use of "can be" implies possibility but does not fit well in the sentence.
- It is more appropriate to use a verb form that expresses a higher degree of certainty.
Option C: might have been / hear
- This option uses the modal verb "might have been" and the base form "hear."
- The use of "might have been" suggests a possibility in the past, but it does not fit well in the sentence.
- It is more appropriate to use a verb form that expresses a higher degree of certainty.
Option D: would be / have heard
- This option uses the modal verb "would be" and the present perfect tense "have heard."
- The use of "would be" indicates a hypothetical situation or expectation, which fits well in the sentence.
- The present perfect tense "have heard" indicates that the action of hearing happened before the present moment.
- This option provides a logical and grammatically correct completion to the sentence.
Option E: will be / will have heard
- This option uses the future tense "will be" and the future perfect tense "will have heard."
- While the use of the future tense is possible, it does not fit well in the sentence.
- The sentence does not provide a clear indication of a future event or time frame.
Therefore, the correct answer is option D: would be / have heard.

The correct answer is C: has acknowledged / could have been.
Explanation:
- The sentence is talking about something that happened in the past, before the September 11 attacks.
- The phrase "has acknowledged" is in the present perfect tense, indicating an action that started in the past and has continued up to the present.
- The phrase "could have been" is in the past conditional tense, indicating a possibility or speculation about the past.
- This combination of tenses correctly conveys the idea that the national security adviser acknowledged the need for better intelligence sharing before the September 11 attacks, and it is a possibility that this could have prevented the attacks.
- The other options do not use the correct tenses or do not convey the same meaning as the original sentence.

To determine the correct answer, let's analyze the given sentence:
"As a young woman who had never given birth before, she ____ what the experience of childbirth ____ like."
The first part of the sentence indicates that the young woman has never given birth before. Based on this information, we can conclude that she does not have prior knowledge or experience about childbirth.
Now let's analyze the options:
A: "doesn't know / will be" - The first part is correct, as she doesn't know. However, the second part should be in the past tense since it refers to her experience of childbirth, which is hypothetical in this case. This option is incorrect.
B: "may not know / is" - The first part is correct, as she may not know. The second part should be in the future tense since it refers to a hypothetical experience. This option is incorrect.
C: "must not have known / will be" - The first part implies certainty that she didn't know, which is not accurate. This option is incorrect.
D: "may not know / would be" - The first part is correct, as she may not know. The second part should be in the future tense since it refers to a hypothetical experience. This option is correct grammatically.
E: "couldn't have known / would be" - The first part implies impossibility, which is not accurate. This option is incorrect.
Therefore, the correct answer is option D: "may not know / would be."