10 very hard grammar questions (Lv5 questions)

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>1) Many pigments used today contain dangerous chemicals, while pigments made in the past were safer.
vs.
Many pigments used today contain dangerous chemicals, but pigments made in the past were safer.</p>

<p>The first was the correct answer. How is it different from the second?</p>

<p>2) Themes of family figure prominently in Martin's poetry; one poem tells of the journey of a father and a son to Puerto Rico to search for their ancestor's grave
vs.
Themes of family figure prominently in Martin's poetry, one of which tell of a father and son's journey to Puerto Rico to search for their ancestor's grave</p>

<p>The second was the correct answer. Why?</p>

<p>3) That I have little interest in art is the not the fault of my parents, (taking) me to art museums since I was a little kid.</p>

<p>Why is TAKING wrong? In a sentences like that, should I invert it to double check if it's right? or is inverting to check the answer a wrong way of checking?
To invert it, it would be like:
(taking) me to art museums since I was a little kid, That I have little interest in art is the not the fault of my parents</p>

<p>4) A thick growth of flowers stood ten feet tall, their brown heads drooped over the fence with the weight of their seeds.
vs.
A thick growth of flowers stood ten feet tall, their brown heads drooping over the fence with the weight of their seeds.</p>

<p>The second is the correct answer. Will using the above method to invert the sentence help me in this case? Cause it seems to work with the second sentence.</p>

<p>5) The snake vibrates its tail rapidly and is also known to secrete a venom.
vs.
The snake vibrates its tail rapidly, in addition, it secretes its venom.</p>

<p>Books says first one is the correct one. Why?</p>

<p>6) The school considered should they get involved in the matter.
vs.
The school considered whether they should get involved in the matter.</p>

<p>The second is correct, why?</p>

<p>7) Its settlement of the conflict showed that the company can hold strong labor relations, treat its employees well, (while still making) a reasonable profit.</p>

<p>Why is the area between the parentheses incorrect?</p>

<p>8) To trap and remove insects greatly affected the ecosystem.
vs.
The trapping and removal of insects greatly affected the ecosysetm.</p>

<p>Why is the second one the right answer?</p>

<p>9) Determined to make a name for herself, the author never submits anything new to the editor until (revising) it.</p>

<p>Why is revising wrong? Is it because the person doing the revising is ambiguous?</p>

<p>10) That the country is now politically stable and economically robust and will continue (to do so) is no longer doubted</p>

<p>Why is (to do so) wrong? Is it because it has an ambiguous reference?</p>

2

<p>Working backwards…</p>

<p>10) the country IS politically stable… it is not DOING anything, it is BEING stabe. and will continue (TO BE SO).</p>

<p>9) The author never SUBMITS until after (SHE REVISES) it. The verb forms have to match</p>

<p>8) To trap is a verb. The sentence need a subject. The trapping… works because it is a noun, not a verb.</p>

3

<p>1) Many pigments used today contain dangerous chemicals, while pigments made in the past were safer.
vs.
Many pigments used today contain dangerous chemicals, but pigments made in the past were safer.</p>

<p>The phrase “but pigments made in the past were safer” implies that the initial claim was that pigments made today are safe as well. When you use “but,” you know they’re working in opposite directions. Therefore, the first answer is correct.</p>

4

<p>4) Saying that their brown heads DROOPED over the fence creates a comma splice; the first clause and the second clause should be separate sentences. Using DROOPING, however, makes the second clause sound like it describes the first clause rather than a separate idea, which makes it what is called an absolute phrase (an absolute phrase is a modifying phrase that usually has the order noun+participle/gerund(-ing ending)+modifier), and therefore a dependent clause. The second clause describes the first, but it cannot be a sentence on its own. Therefore, it is appropriate to use a comma to separate the first and second clause. that’s why the second choice is the correct answer.</p>

5

<p>5) The second choice has a comma splice between the first clause the “in addition,” which makes it incorrect.</p>

6

<p>6) The first choice uses the wrong verb. In that context, the use of the verb “should” changes the meaning of the sentence to “If the school gets involved in that matter, they will consider (it).” The object of the sentence (it), is missing from the sentence, which rules out the possibility that this could be the meaning of the sentence. This meaning also would not make sense in the context. Even if it did, there would have also been a comma between “(it)” and “should.” Since this is not the case, then the second choice must be the answer. The second choice, “The school considered whether or not they would get involved in the matter,” makes sense in context because the meaning of the sentence is sound, and there are no grammatical errors.
7) The phrase in the parentheses is wrong because it lacks parallelism. It would be correct if it read “and make”</p>

7

<p>3) The part in parentheses should read “who took.” The original was wrong because the second clause is describing the first, but it is not clear what it is describing. In this case, it is describing the parents. This should be indicated in the second clause, and it would be done properly by using the word “who”</p>

8

<p>2) The first choice, “Themes of family figure prominently in Martin’s poetry; one poem tells of the journey of a father and a son to Puerto Rico to search for their ancestor’s grave” is not correct because “Themes of a family figure prominently in Martin’s poetry” lacks a verb; hence, it is an incomplete thought. A more correct version would be “Themes of family figure ARE PROMINENT in Martin’s poetry; blahblahblah.”</p>