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.
As a component of adenosine triphosphate, phosphorus is critical for the conversion of light energy to chemical energy during photosynthesis, contributes to essential nucleic acids and phospholipids, and hence is important not just for plant growth, but also for flower and seed formation.
» Explain it
The original statement is correct and hence, no correction is required.

Hence, option E is correct.
» Explain it
The statement conveys that even though Untouchability was abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution, the caste system, which is the root cause of it, was not abolished, and still persists.
The original fragment is incorrect as the two fragments state a contradictory point and using ‘and’ as a connector is incorrect. Use of ‘and’ is used to signify when both fragments complement/ strengthen each other.
Option A is incorrect as it seems to imply that because untouchability was abolished, the caste system was not. This is meaningless.
Option B is incorrect as the sentence structure renders the statement meaningless. Notwithstanding means despite/even though and is correct in terms of meaning but incorrect in terms of the way the sentence has been structured.
Option C is incorrect as ‘likewise’ is used to indicate similar things/instances while here one action has been carried out but its root cause still persists.
Option D is correct and uses the correct connector to indicate contradiction.
Hence, option D is correct.
Although states are using their veto powers to block decisions in the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly can be creatively used as a forum for the immediate engagement with the issue.
» Explain it
The statement tries to convey that even while States (nations) have a tendency to veto UNSC decisions, the UNGA can still be used as a platform to engage/debate issues.

The original fragment is incorrect due to the use of article the. The statement does not mention any specific issue which the UNGA would be discussing while ‘the’ is used to refer to a specific thing.

Option A is incorrect due to the use of is which is the ‘third person singular present’ of ‘be’ and does not make sense. Also, the use of multiple is also meaningless.

Option C is incorrect due to use of the word using which is the present participle of ‘use’ while we need to use used which is the past participle of ‘use’. Another issue is the use of article an which is not followed by a vowel.

Option D is incorrect due to the word ‘use’ instead of used and article ‘a’ which is nor followed by a vowel.

Option B is correct both grammatically and contextually.

Hence, option B is correct.
One of the major strengths of India’s federal fiscal structure is an independent Judiciary and the role it will have to play to strengthen federalism this country.
» Explain it
The statement talks about an Independent Judiciary being one of the major strengths of India’s federal structure and that it has played an important role in strengthening federalism in India.

The original statement is incorrect as it seems to imply that the judiciary has not started to play a role in strengthening federalism and does not match with the tense of the rest of the statement.

Option A is incorrect due to subject-verb agreement rules. The subject here (judiciary) is singular and thus needs a singular verb. Thus, the correct form of play would be plays here.

Option B is clearly absurd in terms of the sentence structure and does not make sense.

Option D is incorrect as the statement is in the past tense indicating the judiciary no longer plays this role. Also, the sentence structure does not make this fragment a good fit in the original sentence.

Option C is correct grammatically and contextually.

Hence, option C is correct.
» Explain it
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.