8. This is the youngest and most intelligent of my two sons.
This is the youngest and more intelligent of my two sons.

correction;
this is the youngest and the more intelligent of my two sons.

9. He is one of those who always succeed.
He is one of them who always succeed.

correction;
he is one of those people who always succeed.[/QUOTE]

corrections

This is the younger and more intelligent of my two sons.

He is the one of those who always succeeds.

mashaaaaaaaaaal

Use the singular verb with "many a" Use singular pronouns to go with the construction also:
e.g
"Many a [B]man has lost his life at sea
It remained a mystery for many a year. [=for many years]
I've been there many a time. [=many times]
Many a politician has promised to make changes. [Politician and has are singular.]
it is grammer rule that many a takes singular verb and singular noun

and plural verb is use with vermin

i hope u get it[/QUOTE]

Hey,

Thank you for attempting the 2001 paper @snbalouch and @Mashaal for checking it. I'd like to add to the corrections:

I agree with your usage of many a.

(f)Incorrect: The black vermin is an odious creature.
Correct:as @Mashaal pointed out:
The black vermin are odious creatures

Reasoning:
"38. Certain Collective Nouns, though singular in form, are always used as plurals; as,
Poultry, cattle, vermin, people, gentry.
These poultry are mine.
Whose are these cattle?
Vermin destroy our property and carry disease.
Who are those people (= persons)?
There are few gentry in this town" (Wren and Martin 12).

And, I'd like to make a correction:
h) Incorrect: No sooner we left our home when it started raining.
Correct: No sooner had we left our home than it started raining.
this is a rule, you use had and than in sequence.

Regards,

I always learn from your posts. This post is exceptionally helpful. I hope after your exam (CCE-16) you will not leave this forum. You are best mentor for new aspirant like me on this forum.

I have quoted one sentence from your post. Once a teacher taught me that we must express the relations always in present tense. Sir you have used 'was' instead of 'is'. Should not the correct sentence be,

The boy who was promoted, is my brother.

__________________
Khushboo Hai Mere Khoon Mein Kafoor Ki Manind,
Bikhrunga Fizaun Mein Ek Noor Ki Manind . . .

Hey,

Yes, you are absolutely correct I didn't pay attention to the context of the sentence. The sentence basically means that you are telling a 3rd person about someone, thus it makes no sense to treat them in the past tense because they are still with you.

To substantiate your claim I'll quote an example from exploring the world of English pg 468:
Incorrect: This is my friend, he was at school with me.
Correct: This is my friend who was at school with me.
See the transition from is to was.

I think the trick to sentences such as these could be that we go in reverse; This is my brother, the boy who was promoted (sounds correct)
This was my brother, the boy who was promoted (sounds incorrect)
So, your correction: The boy who was promoted is my brother is correct.

Don't add a comma though because it is adding to the sentence i.e. the clause who was is restrictive.

Thank you for pointing this out, I wouldn't have seen my mistake otherwise.
And, yes I'll help after the exam also.

Regards,

I didn't notice this comma thing. You are absolutely right sir.

'The boy who was promoted' is subject in the sentence. Adding comma does not make sense here.

__________________
Khushboo Hai Mere Khoon Mein Kafoor Ki Manind,
Bikhrunga Fizaun Mein Ek Noor Ki Manind . . .

Hey,

I'd like to verify and correct some of the answers I presented:

2) Incorrect: He is the ablest and efficient teacher.
Incorrect: He is the most ablest and efficient teacher.
InCorrect: He is the most able and efficient teacher.

Correct: He is one of the ablest and most efficient of teachers.
Reasoning: the superlative for able is ablest. And, this is how such sentences have been written in books and in sentences found online.
Exploring the World of English: pg 640: ". . . he turned one of the ablest and most attached of his supporters into a deadly enemy."


14) Incorrect: He always had hatred against inefficiency.
Incorrect: He always has hatred against inefficiency.
Incorrect: He has always hated inefficiency.

Correct: He always had hatred of/for inefficiency.
Source: Exploring the world of English 787-88.

Reasoning: hatred is not the error it's the preposition it's used with. To replace hatred with hated may not be the right way of correcting this sentence as the examiner would most likely be testing the student's ability to correctly use prepositions.

23) Incorrect: This is another side of the question.
Incorrect:This is another part of the question.
Correct: There is another side to the question.


I had mentioned previously that I was unsure about this correction. I am sure of it now. This correction is verifiable on pg 789-90 of Exploring the World of English.

23) Incorrect: The debate was now coming to a close.
Incorrect: The debate is coming to the conclusion now.
Incorrect: The debate is coming to a close now.

Upon checking in Exploring the World of English the correction should have been: The debate was now drawing to a close. [pg 788].

Now is correctly placed since it's used for emphasis on time. As for drawing to a close I do not know the rationale behind its usage since coming to a close and drawing to a close have similar meanings. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say perhaps drawing to a close is used in the past tense and to maintain the structure of the original sentence in the past tense it has been used.

I'll keep checking the remainder of the answers, particularly those which I am doubtful of. And, I hope I didn't mislead any one with my previous answers,if I did I hope you understand the revised corrections

Regards,

Which on of the following is grammatically correct?
1. After the mistake, he was relieved of his duties.
OR
After the mistake, he was relieved off his duties.
OR
After the mistake, he was relieved from his duties.
2. Rs.5500/- (Rupees Five thousand and five hundred only)
OR
Rs.5500/- (Rupees Five thousands and five hundreds only)

I have read following sentence in dawn newspaper but i need help in differentiating between following sentences:-
1. In August this year the PTI chief had announced that Reham Khan, will not be playing an active role in party affairs, following "attacks" on his then wife in the aftermath of the party's defeat in the NA-19 (Haripur) by-polls.
&

In August this year the PTI chief had announced that Reham Khan, will not play an active role in party affairs, following "attacks" on his then wife in the aftermath of the party's defeat in the NA-19 (Haripur) by-polls.

Hey,

It's relieved of. This is an idiom which means to unburden someone from his or her's duties. A suggestion, go through idioms and words with off to get an idea of their usage.

It's Rupees five thousand and five hundred. I think it's because we are referring to the amount collectively, and also you never hear someone say I have five thousands rupees its always five thousand.

Regards,

Hey,

The difference has to do with the tenses. In the first sentence it says that Reham Khan will not be playing; this is the future continuous tense.
The will indicates the future and be playing indicates the continuous tense. This sentence implies that Reham Khan will not in the near future play an active role in party affairs, and indicates that this action would begin in the future and continue in the future.

In the second sentence it says will not play. This is the simple future tense. It simply implies that she won't have a role in party affairs in the future and may express a fact or certainty.

Both the sentences express the same meaning in the future tense, however, in the first one the emphasis is on the progression of the act in the future whereas in the second one a certainty or fact is expressed.

This site can explain the difference better: http://www.italki.com/question/140908

Regards,

Or should I rather use.
Which disease is paracetamol used for.

Hey,

So both these versions sound grammatically correct to me:
For which disease is Paracetamol used?
Which disease is Paracetamol used for?

However, For which disease Paracetamol is used doesn't sound correct to me. The verb is should come before the subject of the main clause.
Generally, in a sentence the order is as follows: Subject-verb-object. Sometimes, for literary purposes this order is inverted. And, in prepositional phrases the subject is not a part of the prepositional phrase. http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subject.htm

Try to speak out the sentence in your mind and whichever sounds the most correct I'd say go for it.

Regards,