IPM Indore 2023 Question Paper

The correct answer is option A : go the extra mile .

The phrase "go the extra mile" means to make a special effort or do more than what is expected, which fits perfectly here. The other options are incorrect or not commonly used idioms.

"Small fry" is a commonly used informal phrase that refers to people who are considered unimportant or minor in a particular context, especially compared to powerful or influential individuals. It often contrasts with “big shots” or “big fish,” making it the perfect fit here.

"Small fish" is close but not idiomatic enough here. Although "small fish" is sometimes used to mean lesser offenders, it's less commonly used in this specific idiomatic pairing. "Big shot and small fry" is a more common pairing than "big shot and small fish"

Tiny shot and tiny fish are not idioms or standard phrases in English.

Hence, option (A) small fry is the best choice for this question.

The preposition "Off-the-cuff" means without preparation or spontaneously, which fits perfectly with the phrase "a rough estimate."

"Off-the-mark" means inaccurate or incorrect, which doesn’t fit well grammatically or logically in this context.  "Off-the-grid" means not connected to public utilities or systems— not relevant here. " Off-the-mike" isn’t a standard phrase in English.

The correct answer is therefore Option A.

"Saving grace" refers to the one redeeming quality of someone or something that is otherwise disappointing or flawed.

"Saving face" means preserving one’s dignity or reputation in a difficult situation — not applicable here.

"Saving praise" and "saving case" are not standard phrases in English.

Hence, the correct choice in this context is Option (A).

"Whoever" and "whomever" are both relative pronouns, but they have distinct uses. "Whoever" is a subject pronoun, referring to the subject of a verb, while "whomever" is an object pronoun, referring to the object of a verb or preposition. 

In the given sentence, we examine the phrase "...buy a gift for _____ you are assigned."

“You” is the subject of the clause. “are assigned” is the passive verb. And the blank (relative pronoun) is the object — the one you are assigned.

So you're assigned to someone, and that someone is the object of the verb “assign” (even though it’s in passive voice). In this clause, the subject is you, and the relative pronoun is the object.

The correct phrase is therefore “…buy a gift for whomever you are assigned.”

The other option whom lacks a clear relative clause structure to be grammatically correct. Hence, option B is the correct answer . 

The verb "insist" (when used to express a strong suggestion or demand) is followed by:

“that + subject + base verb”  (subjunctive mood)

OR "insist on + -ing form" (idiomatic prepositional structure of "insist.")

Let us look at each option one by one.

Option (A) that she had paid for the meal :  uses past perfect ("had paid"), which implies the action already happened before some past reference, but that's not what "insisted" conveys. 

“She insisted that she had paid” implies she claimed she had already paid. But the original context is about her insisting on paying, not claiming she did. So, this doesn’t match the intended meaning 

Option (B) that she pay for the meal : follows the correct subjunctive structure: insisted that + [subject] + [base verb]

“She insisted that she pay” = she demanded/suggested that she herself be the one to pay, which is precisely the intended meaning of the sentence. 

Option(C) on and paid for the meal : seems to try to follow the idiomatic form "insist on + -ing", but it’s not correctly constructed.

If it were: “...insisted on paying for the meal,” it would be correct.

But “insisted on and paid” is grammatically broken — two mismatched verbs, no clear object, and wrong structure.

Option(D) that she will be paying for the meal : has a Tense mismatch . The main verb is in the past tense “She always insisted...” ; But “will be paying” is in the future tense, which doesn’t fit with a past-time frame.

Hence, Option B is the correct answer.

The given sentence follows the conditional type 3 sentence structure. Conditional sentences are given as: If + (conditional clause) , (main clause)

In the case of a type 3 conditional sentence, the conditional clause is in past perfect tense (subject + had + V3), while the main clause follows a perfect conditional or perfect continuous conditional (would have + V3); where V3 is the past participle form of the verb. 

In the given sentence: ...If it had been him in his friend’s place, he would definitely accepted such an offer. "

The clause "...If it had been him in his friend’s place" is the conditional, and hence the main clause should be he WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY ACCEPTED such an offer.

The correct answer is therefore option B. 

In this question, three things are to be considered. 

1. affect vs effect ( Affect is a verb that means influence; effect is a noun meaning result) 

2. possessive form of "story" ( the correct possessive for story is story's, ie singular possessive )

3. plot vs plots ( here, one story is considered so 'plot' will be used instead of 'plots')

Hence, the correct option is (D) affects the story’s plot.

Sentences with nothing and nobody are treated as negative sentences; hence a positive question tag is used with them . The correct tag for " nothing much has changed " will therefore be "has it? "

The passage highlights how freshwater scarcity and the shared nature of many rivers and water bodies are leading to growing international tensions and conflicts, especially in regions like the Middle East, where countries rely on the same critical water sources.

Option C discusses water scarcity, the expense of alternatives, and escalating international tensions, while also introducing the subsequent examples of conflict. The later sentences further elaborate on these points. Therefore, it serves as an ideal opening sentence and sets the stage for the ensuing dialogues. 

Option A is a general observation; however, the passage ( or the author ) assumes that readers know that water is scarce, and this statement does not lead on to the idea of international conflicts. Hence, this option is not a proper fit.Option B doesn’t directly connect to the reality of shared rivers or rising tensions or set up the factual tone of the rest of the paragraph. Option D focuses on individual-level scarcity, not international tension.

Hence, option C is the best answer for this.