IPM Indore 2025 Question Paper

The sentence talks about the frequent and almost oblivious behaviour of deer on or near roads, and how they seem unaffected by cars or danger—the blank calls for a phrase that continues this idea of natural, perhaps sudden or carefree movement.

The best answer is "bounding across the road" (Option D) because "bounding" accurately captures the leaping, energetic motion typical of deer.  "Bounding across the road" is a natural continuation of actions like crossing or standing in the road.

The other options do not fit either contextually or grammatically. "Jumping under the road" (Option A) is physically illogical and awkward. "Foraging beneath the road"(Option B) is biologically implausible and disrupts the flow. "Staggering with the road" (Option C) is unclear and doesn't convey natural animal behaviour. Only "bounding across the road" aligns with how deer move and completes the sentence logically and vividly.

Option D is the best choice. 

The sentence expresses curiosity about how a travel vlogger manages to sustain constant worldwide travel.The blank needs a phrase that accurately captures the essence of his perpetual movement and how he handles it. 

The best answer is "manage his itinerant lifestyle" because "itinerant" precisely describes a travelling way of life. This fits perfectly as it's the correct grammatical form (adjective + noun) and matches the travel context. Other options fail because: "itinerary" is a noun (not an adjective), "iterative" means repetitive (unrelated to travel), and "itinerary in his lifestyle" is grammatically awkward. Only "itinerant" properly conveys the vlogger's mobile existence. 

The four choices given to us are phrases. We look at the meaning of each phrase individually 

(A) Dead ringer: This means an "exact lookalike",; which is irrelevant to the implied meaning here.
(B) Silver lining: This refers to a positive aspect of a bad situation , which also doesn't fit the context. 
(C) Red herring: This phrase is use dto refer to a distraction from a real issue, which is not the intended meaning in the sentence, and hence cant be used here. 
(D)  Silver bullet: This refers to a simple solution to a complex problem. The sentence argues that renewable energy alone cannot solve climate change—it’s not a one-step fix. Hence, Silver bullet fits perfectly to the context here, and is the most appropriate choice. 

Correct answer (D).

The sentence describes labourers who, after being fired, reacted destructively by breaking into the office and damaging machinery. Instead of addressing their grievances through constructive means, they chose a violent approach that worsened their circumstances. The blank requires a phrase that captures how their actions negatively intensified the original problem rather than resolving it.

The correct answer is "exacerbated the situation" (Option A) because it means they made their problems worse through destructive actions, exactly what happened when they broke equipment instead of solving issues constructively. 

The other options don't fit: "extended troubles" (Option B) is vague, "exaggerated hardships" (Option C) implies overstating problems rather than worsening them, and "extenuated" (Option D) means making circumstances seem less serious (the opposite of what occurred). Only "exacerbated" accurately describes how their violent response intensified the original conflict.

In the given sentence, the verb is "regard", which takes the proposition "as". So the correct construction should follow " ... to be regarded as..." ; secondly, the phrase "one of the" always takes a plural noun, as it essentially implies one of the many. 

So the correct sentence should be "Among scientists, the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and the genetic code it incorporates is widely regarded as one of the most significant scientific discoveries of the twentieth century. ", making option B the correct choice. 

The speaker in th sentence is expressing relief ("Thank goodness") that the car's damage was presumably minor or insignificant.

The correct answer is "was negligible" (Option A) because it means the car damage was so minor it didn't matter- matching the relieved tone. The other options are wrong: "neglecting" (Option B) is grammatically incorrect here, "neglectable" (Option C) isn't a real word, and "negligent" (Option D) refers to careless behaviour rather than damage severity. Only "negligible" properly describes trivial damage worth ignoring, making Option A the correct choice here. 

The sentence uses "parallel structure". To be grammatically correct, all the verbs mentioned in the sentence [increase, reducing , and enhancing] should follow the same verb form. Each verb is in the infinitive form without "to" (the infinitive structure is to + V1). The correct structure here is therefore the base form of the verb(V1): "increase," "reduce," and "enhance.", which makes Option D the correct answer. 

The other options break this parallelism. Option A uses "reducing" and "enhanced," which are inconsistent. Option B introduces incorrect phrases like "reducing of costs" and "enhancing of." Option C starts well but ends with "enhancing," disrupting the verb pattern. 

The sentence in the second clause uses "would have handled", which is a would have + past participle structure. The sentence is a conditional, and since the change is only in the first clause, the correct structure should follow the conditional type 3 structure [if + past perfect, ... would have + past participle].

The correct statement should be " If the President had known that his allies would let him down so suddenly, he would have handled them with the greatest care" or "Had the President had known that his allies would let him down so suddenly, he would have handled them with the greatest care ", making option B the correct choice. 

The proper grammar structure is "have someone do something". The causative "have + person + base verb" is the standard way to indicate that someone was asked or instructed to perform a task on another's behalf. The correct answer is therefore option A:" had my brother feed my dog"

The other options contain grammatical errors that make them incorrect. Option A: "had my brother to give food" incorrectly inserts "to," which disrupts the standard causative form. Option B: "had my brother giving" uses the -ing form, which suggests an ongoing action rather than the intended meaning of arranged responsibility. Option C: "had my brother who fed" incorrectly turns the phrase into a description rather than an instruction, changing the meaning entirely. 

The passage given critiques the use of BMI as a reliable metric for diagnosing obesity and emphasises its limitations. We therefore need a sentence in the blank that directly explains why BMI is problematic, while also logically linking the critique to the details about fat distribution and health that follow in the subsequent lines.  

Option A contradicts the paragraph’s central claim by suggesting BMI can pinpoint the cause of obesity. Option B shifts the focus to social media, which is unrelated to the current discussion. Option C implies that BMI is used to prescribe treatment, which the paragraph does not suggest. Option D correctly extends the idea and supports the critique of BMI’s effectiveness. It connects the idea of misdiagnosis to the root issue with BMI, setting up the explanation that follows about how BMI fails to accurately reflect fat distribution and overall health, thereby maintaining the argumentative flow.

The correct answer in this case is therefore option D.