Directions: In the questions given below, a statement has been provided with a part of it highlighted in bold. You are required to replace this bold part with one of the options given below in order to make it contextually and grammatically meaningful. If the statement is correct, please mark option E- no correction required- as the answer.
While armed humanitarian intervention has no justification for international law, self-defence or collective self-defence are premised on dubious legality.
While armed humanitarian intervention has no justification under
Correct AnswerWhile armed humanitarian intervention have no justification under
Incorrect AnswerWhile armed humanitarian intervention had no justification under
Incorrect AnswerWhile armed humanitarian intervention has no justification over
Incorrect AnswerNo correction needed
Incorrect AnswerExplanation:
The statement talks about armed humanitarian intervention having no place in international law. Also, the legality of other aspects like self defense etc is also a contested topic.
The original statement is incorrect due to use of incorrect preposition for as it seems to imply armed humanitarian intervention cannot justify using international law, which is meaningless.
Option B is incorrect due to subject verb disagreement. Instead of ‘have’, ‘has’ would be used here.
Option C is incorrect due to tense mismatch. The first part of the statement talks in the past tense while the second in the present.
Option D is incorrect due to the use of ‘over’ which renders the statement meaningless.
Option A is correct and conveys the correct meaning.
Hence, option A is correct.
![]()
By: Brijesh Kumar