While armed humanitarian intervention has no justification for international law self defence ...........

English ( Master) Sentence Improvement

Directions: In the following questions, some part of the sentence is highlighted in bold. Which of the options given below the sentence should replace the part printed in bold to make the sentence grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given then choose 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

While armed humanitarian intervention have no justification under

While armed humanitarian intervention had no justification under

While armed humanitarian intervention has no justification over

No correction needed

छोटे Courses बड़े Results

Master Sentence Improvement

Prepare through Micro-courses

Try Now

Explanation:

Correct Option: A

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.