IPMAT Rohtak 2019 Question Paper

The sentence is : When I were a newspaper journalist,  I always relied on the news editor and  the subs to put things right. 

In this sentence, the error is in the first part. The verb "were" is incorrect here because in this case, it's used with "I" in a normal past tense sentence, not in a subjunctive or hypothetical context. In case of hypotgeticals or subjunctive mood, we use I were, otherwise we use I was. Herfe "I was" should have been used. 

So the correct answer is Option A. 

The sentence is: I could count on one  hand the things I know about my friend. 

The statement tells us that (i) Family income has increased in metro areas.,and (ii) A key reason is that both spouses (husbands and wives) are working now, which was less common earlier.

Now we look at each statement individually: 

a) Wives earn more than their husbands today.
This cannot be inferred from the statement.
The statement only says both are working — it does not compare their individual incomes. It says nothing about who earns more, so we cannot draw this conclusion.

b) It was less prevalent for the spouse to work earlier than today.
This can be inferred. The statement says "as in most families these days husbands and wives both are working," implying that earlier, this was less common.

c) The family income level was lower a few years ago.
This is a direct inference , as the statement says income has increased compared to earlier.

d) More husbands and wives are working today as compared to last few years.
This is in line with the statement that "most families these days" have both spouses working, implying an increase compared to the past.

Hence, only statement 1 cannot be inferred, so the correct choice is option A. 

Argument 1: Yes. War is justified for the noble purpose of peacekeeping. This argument supports pre-emptive military action by powerful nations if a weaker nation poses a probable danger to world peace. The reasoning here is consequentialist: if the end (peace) is noble, the means (war) may be justified.
This is a valid argument,so this argument is implicit (acceptable in reasoning).

Argument 2: No. War/violence should never be resorted to. This is an absolute moral stance that violence is never justifiable. While it reflects a pacifist viewpoint, it is too rigid for nuanced policy reasoning, especially in scenarios involving probable danger to world peace. Most real-world decisions require balancing harm versus outcome, so saying violence should never be used makes this argument less reasonable in this context.

Therefore , only Argument 1 is reasonably acceptable (implicit). The correct answer is a) If only 1 is implicit 

In the sentence "___________ is the most important city of a country," the correct homonym to use is "capital." The word "capital" refers to the city that serves as the seat of government and the administrative centre of a country. 

While "capitol" sounds similar, it specifically refers to a building where legislative bodies meet, not a city. The other options, "capetol" and "capitalisation," are either incorrect or unrelated in meaning. Therefore, the correct answer is option c: capital.

The word that expresses distance is a) Farther. Farther specifically refers to physical distance — how much farther something is in terms of space. Further can also mean distance, but is often used for figurative or abstract extension (like further discussion). So, farther is the best choice when discussing actual, measurable distance. Father is a completely different word, meaning a male parent. Ferther is not a valid English word.

The correct answer is “No improvement” because the word room is the most natural and idiomatic choice here, as it conveys the idea of “space or capacity” in the compartment. The alternatives are less accurate: seat would be wrong since there may be no seats but still standing space, space is grammatically acceptable but less idiomatic than room, and accommodation usually refers to lodging rather than a compartment. Hence, the original sentence is already correct and requires no change.

The sentence is a third conditional (conditional type 3), which talks about unreal past situations and their possible outcomes. The correct structure for the "if" clause in a third conditional is: If + past perfect (had + past participle), ... would have + past participle.

So, the improved sentence should be: "If he had tried, he would have succeeded."

The other options don’t fit the correct conditional structure. Hence, option C is the correct choice. 

Conflate means to merge two elements or processes into a single entity. The second statement refers to being "divided." In the third statement, the dogs are on the verge of fighting and therefore need to be kept apart. Both of these statements express the contrary of "conflate." Only the first statement accurately represents the definition of the term. Thus, the correct answer choice is A.

"Rare" describes something that is not frequently encountered and difficult to locate. Statement I mentions "not found in many collections," which aligns with this definition. In statement II, "knew little" and "unique condition" highlight the idea that the disease is unusual. In statement III, the family is positioned at the end of a long queue; it should read "rear" instead of "rare." Thus, statements I and II effectively convey the intended meaning. Therefore, the correct answer choice is D.