SRCC GBO 2017 Question Paper

Let us understand the important nouns and phrases in each sentence and try to arrange them sequentially. 
reason for success-highly qualified professors-100 year university-initial departments-current status

We are looking for a sequence of sentences that introduces the university, takes you on a journey from the initial status to the current status and how the statute of its professionals leads to success. 
C. This university has completed 100 years.
D. Initially, the university had only six departments.
E. Now, it has 100 professors working in 30 departments.
B. All these professors are highly qualified.
A. This is the reason for achieving high academic excellence.

Hence, the correct order of sentences is CDEBA. 

Let us try to understand the central theme of the passage. We are looking for a sequence of sentences that clearly introduces the idea of management institutes from a chronological perspective. 
 At the time of independence, India did not have any management institute of high repute.
Is the first sentence introducing the idea that at the time of independence there was a lack of management institutes. 
The first IIM was established in 1961 in Kolkata.
Is the second sentence showing that there was progress made in establishing an institute 
However, the need to have more IIMs was still felt.
This sentence carries the sentiment of needing more IIM's. 
Subsequently, a few more IIMs were set up at various locations in India.
This sentence clearly shows the action carried out. 

Hence, the correct sequence is, 
CBDEA

The nouns used in the passage are house-woman-street-face-windows. 

We can sequentially arrange these nouns as: There is a street, where there is a house, which has windows, through which there is a woman with a face. 

This is the sequential arrangement of nouns that make sense. Let us try arranging the 5 sentences in a way that make sense, while arranging the nouns sequentially. 

C. Far away in a narrow street there is a house.
A. The house is quite old and in a bad shape.
E. One of the windows is open.
B. Through it, I can see an old woman seated in a chair.
D. Her face is worn and full of wrinkles.

Hence, the correct order of sentences is CAEBD

Let us examine the given choices - 

Option A: The sentence starts with the goal ("to reach the destination") but then introduces the action ("followed the route") before explaining the reason ("because he was confused"). This creates a slightly disjointed flow because the cause (confusion) is mentioned after the effect (following the route).

Option B: The phrase "as he became confused" is unnecessarily wordy and indirect. It introduces a causal relationship ("as") but does so in a way that feels less natural than simply stating the man's state of confusion upfront. The phrase "had to follow" implies obligation or compulsion, which is not inherently wrong but adds a layer of meaning that isn’t necessary. The sentence could be more straightforward by simply stating that he followed the route.

Option C: This sentence clearly establishes a simple cause-and-effect relationship between the man's confusion and his action. The cause (confusion) directly leads to the effect (“following the route”), and the sentence is easy to follow. The conjunction "so" efficiently links the cause and effect.

Option D: The phrase "as the man was confused" is inserted awkwardly in the middle of the sentence, breaking the natural flow. This makes the sentence harder to read and less cohesive. Furthermore, see how the sentence starts with "to reach the destination," which is the goal, but then interrupts with the reason for confusion before stating the action. This structure feels less direct and more convoluted.

Hence, between Options B and C, the latter is the better choice. 

It appears that the given sentence aims to communicate the idea that under certain conditions (if it is needed or necessary), new words can or should be employed to fully express the intensity or emotion of an exclamation. The key elements here are (i) conditionality (the use of new words is not absolute; it depends on whether it is necessary) and (ii) purpose (the goal is to express the "full force of exclamation"). Let us evaluate the given choices - 

Option A: Here, "could be used" is less definitive and slightly informal - it suggests possibility rather than recommendation, which weakens the intended meaning. Furthermore, the conditional phrase ("if required") is awkwardly placed in the middle of the sentence, disrupting the flow and making it less clear.

Option B: This choice corrects the problem with Option A: the phrase "if necessary" is placed at the beginning, making it immediately clear that the use of new words is conditional; this sets up the context. The use of "should be used" conveys a sense of recommendation or appropriateness, which fits well here. The sentence follows a natural order: condition → action → purpose. This structure makes it easy to follow the reasoning:

Option C: The structure here is awkward and confusing. The purpose ("to express the full force of exclamation") is stated first, followed by the condition ("if necessary"), and then the action ("new words will be used"). This disrupts the logical flow and makes the sentence harder to follow. Moreover, "will be used" is overly definitive and does not convey the conditional aspect as effectively as "should be used."

Option D: There seems to be a tense inconsistency here: "are used" is present tense and suggests a general truth or habitual action rather than a conditional recommendation. This makes the sentence less precise and less compelling.

Hence, Option B is the best choice. 

The structure ["Neither ... nor ..."] requires parallel construction. In this case, both parts of the sentence should follow the same grammatical pattern. Furthermore, in standard written English, when "Neither" or "Nor" begins a clause, the subject and auxiliary verb are inverted. This is why "does he come" and "does he write" are correct. The inversion ("does he") is necessary for formal writing. Thus, the correct structure would be: "Neither does he [verb] nor does he [verb]." We observe that only Option D reflects this. 

The key idea here: Emily’s action (retiring) is interrupted by her observation of someone else’s action (turning to the papers). The sentence should clearly show the cause-and-effect relationship between these two actions. The only sentence that conveys this without any grammatical or logical errors is Option B. The phrase "was hastily retiring" indicates that Emily was already in the process of retiring, but it’s interrupted. The phrase "saw him turn" is a simple past tense verb, showing that the action of her seeing him happened after she had already started retiring. This matches the narrative flow perfectly.

Option A: The placement of "but" is awkward and disrupts the flow of the sentence. It makes it seem like "but" is connecting "Emily" and "saw," which is not the intended contrast.

Option C: This sentence reverses the intended meaning. It suggests that Emily stopped retiring before she saw him turn to the papers, which doesn’t make logical sense. The cause-and-effect relationship is lost.

Option D: This sentence is overly repetitive and awkwardly structured. The repeated use of "and" makes the sentence feel disjointed. Moreover, it suggests that Emily stopped and then went to retire again, which contradicts the original idea that her retiring was interrupted, and she stopped as a result.

Hence, Option B is the best choice. 

In standard English, collective nouns such as “jury” are typically treated as singular. The only exception is when the sentence refers to individual members of the jury's actions. Hence, we need to use "was divided", taking jury as a singular noun. And also, "it returned" is to be used instead of "they returned." 

Hence, the standard and correct sentence is, 
At first the jury was divided in opinion, but finally it returned a unanimous verdict.

Option B is the correct answer.

The idiom "cast the first stone" means to be the first to criticize or attack someone. It refers to being the first to make an accusation or a judgment. 

The other options are incorrect because "cast the first stone" refers to making an attack or criticism first, not being involved, praising, or simply starting any fight.

Option A is the correct answer.

"Chew the cud" is an idiom that means to think deeply or reflect on something.

The other options don't capture the meaning of the idiom accurately.