Directions : A grammatically correct and contextually meaningful statement has…
2021
Directions : A grammatically correct and contextually meaningful statement has been given in each of the following questions. Five similar sentences have been placed next to each statement, one of which is contextually similar in meaning to the one given in the question. Choose the most appropriate sentence that conveys the same meaning as the given statement.
Recent events that led to the dismissal of an officer have brought the process of appointing and replacing state officials back into the forefront.
- A.
The procedure of dismissing and replacing state officials has resurfaced as a result of recent events that resulted in the removal of an officer.
- B.
Recent events involving the induction of a state officer have reintroduced the procedure of dismissing and replacing state officials.
- C.
Recent incidents surrounding the accession of a state officer have reintroduced the procedure of substituting and discharging state officials.
- D.
As a result of recent occurrences that resulted in the expulsion of an officer, the system for terminating and removing state officials has resurfaced.
- E.
The procedure of appointing and transferring state officials has resurfaced as a result of recent events that resulted in the firing of an officer.
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: E
Concept: A sentence-equivalence (paraphrase) item asks for the option that conveys the SAME total meaning as the given statement — every load-bearing idea must survive the rewording. Test each option against the anchor ideas in the stem and reject any option that drops, reverses, or distorts even one of them.
The two anchor ideas in the statement are: (1) the triggering event was an officer being DISMISSED — that is, fired or removed from office; and (2) the process now back in focus is APPOINTING-AND-REPLACING state officials — putting officials in and swapping them out.
Applying the test
Anchor 1, the officer event: the matching option must describe the officer being fired or removed, not brought in. 'Firing', 'removal' and 'expulsion' all preserve this; 'induction' and 'accession' reverse it, because they mean the officer was appointed — the opposite event.
Anchor 2, the process: the matching option must keep BOTH halves, 'appointing' and 'replacing'. Turning 'appointing' into another word for removal (such as 'dismissing' or 'terminating') destroys the constructive half and leaves only the removal idea.
The option that fires an officer AND still speaks of appointing officials, while only softening 'replacing' to a close near-synonym, keeps both anchors intact — that is the sentence about a procedure of appointing and transferring officials resurfacing after an officer was fired.
Why the others fail
The version about 'dismissing and replacing' after a 'removal' keeps 'replacing' but swaps 'appointing' for 'dismissing', so the constructive half is lost and the sentence now talks only about removing.
The version built on the 'induction' of an officer flips Anchor 1: induction means the officer was appointed, the opposite of being dismissed.
The version built on the 'accession' of an officer also flips Anchor 1, and recasts the process as 'substituting and discharging' — both removal ideas, with no appointing.
The version about 'expulsion' keeps the firing idea but reframes the process as 'terminating and removing', so once again the 'appointing' half is gone.
Result: only the option that retains an officer being fired together with a procedure of appointing officials carries both anchor ideas; each of the rest breaks at least one anchor, so it changes the meaning.