send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
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
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
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 ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses