In the future, please list each separate question as a separate post. It makes posts easier to read/respond to/search for.

But here goes:

1. I shall meet you when he (comes / will come) back.

I am unsure why is chosen the correct answer when we are referring to the future. e.g. I will have a chicken pie tomorrow.

This is simply a function of how "when" is used in English. In other languages, the future tense might be preferred in this context, but in English the format is I will do X when you do Y. [Future tense] when [present tense].

2. He thanked me for what I (have done / had done) for him.

What I have done for him is present perfect i.e I have done something for him and my efforts are ongoing. But the correct answer is had done.

You're right that taken on its own, what you have done could be ongoing. The key here is that "he thanked" is in the past tense. What you did for him (even if ongoing) was prior to that past tense event. Any time we're talking about an event before some other past event, we use the past perfect.

3. I (have just cleaned / just cleaned) my shoes.

Correct answer is have just cleaned. Is it because of ongoing effect or some other reason?

Both of these sentences are correct, but have slightly different meanings. The simple past tense "cleaned" implies "I did this action, now it's done." When you use the present perfect, though, it implies continuation - there's the added meaning that the shoes continue to be clean.

4. I know all about this book because I ( read / have read) it twice.

This seems to be simple past i.e. I read it twice but the correct answer is have read (i.e. something ongoing?)

Similar idea to the previous - both are technically correct. Generally when we're talking about experiential activities - reading books, traveling to countries - we use the present perfect to convey that the knowledge/experience we acquired is still with us. I could say "I read the book," or I could say "I have read the book." The second one implies that the effects of it are still with me - I retained that knowledge. So when we say "I know about this book because," it makes a bit more sense to use present perfect.

5. Do you think you ( have seen / had seen) him earlier sometime also?

I picked have seen but it is wrong.

"Earlier sometime also" is a very strange, awkward construction. You would use "have seen" when comparing to now: have you seen him before this moment? You would use "had seen" when comparing to a past moment: had you seen him before last night?

6. A better day for this function could not (have been chosen / be chosen).

I picked 'be chosen' but it is wrong.

Again, this is about subtle shades of meaning. "could not have been chosen" implies that the choosing happened in the past, and its effects carry until now. "Could not be chosen" would imply choosing happening in the future.

7. She had (to work / been working) all through winter.

It seems like an event in the past. Since a single event happened I picked to work instead of past perfect. But had been working is correct.

Once again, these are both grammatically correct, but contain different meaning. "Had to work" puts emphasis on the fact that her work was an obligation that she had all winter. "Had been working" puts emphasis on the continuousness of her work.

8. If only I (knew / had known) her.

"Knew her" = now
"Had known" = past, meaning that she's probably dead/gone now.

9. It is high time you (resolve / resolved) your differences.

Both of these could be correct. It's the difference between "it's time to do this thing now" vs. "it's time that this thing was already done." It's idiomatic.

10. He (leaves / will leave) for America next week.

Will leave = future but correct answer is leaves.

These are both correct. When you're talking about the near future, you can use present or future tense.

11. I (will write / am writing) an essay this time.

will write again here is wrong.

Nope, they can both be correct. It depends on whether you're doing it at this moment, or if you're about to.

12. He (lives / is living) in California now.

Please confirm what is wrong with lives.

This is more idiomatic than grammatical. Because "to live" is very much an ongoing activity, we use the progressive tenses more commonly that the simple present. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "he lives in California," though. People say that all the time!


The best thing I can tell you is to GET RID OF THIS STUDY GUIDE, whatever it was! Pretty much every single question that you posted could have been right either way, so they were misleading you by listing "correct" or "incorrect" answers without explanation. What source was this? You definitely shouldn't be using it to study from.