IPMAT Indore 2022 · Verbal Ability · Question 21

Blank 1 — the grammar decides it. The blank is followed by “that he had leaked…”, so the verb must take a that-clause.

alleged that ✔ — standard, and correctly tentative for an investigation in progress.

discovered that (a) is grammatical but asserts the leak as established fact, which sits awkwardly with “investigators have” — and it clashes with the tentative tone such sentences take.

accused (c) ✘ — a grammatical error. One accuses a person of something: accused him of leaking. “Accused that” is not English. This is the decisive elimination.

announced that (d) — investigators announce findings, but the register is wrong for an unproven leak.

Blank 2 — what kind of confidential information about an acquisition? The fixed term is

\text{insider information}

— non-public information about a company, whose misuse constitutes insider trading. Internal (a) and financial (d) are vaguer and miss the legal term the sentence is clearly reaching for.

Blank 3 — how did the associates profit? Given a leak of insider information, the profit was unlawful:

\text{illicitly}

enormously (a) and dramatically (c) describe size, not legality, and the sentence’s whole point is wrongdoing.

treacherously (d) describes betrayal, which fits the leaker rather than the profiting associates.

Answer: Option 2

Shortcut. Option (c) fails on pure grammar: accuse never takes a that-clause. You accuse someone of something. That is the cheapest elimination available and costs no comprehension.

Then blank 2 looks for a set phrase. Insider information is the established legal term for exactly this scenario; the alternatives are generic.

And blank 3 asks for the right dimension. The sentence is about a leak and its consequences, so the adverb must concern legality, not magnitude — illicitly, not enormously.

Three different tests — grammar, fixed phrase, dimension — each pointing to (b).