Almost at the 2400 - Just help me with these writing questions

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Alright, so I got -1 on this writing section :( and it was a level 3 question! lol</p>

<ol>
<li> When Doris Lessing published "the Golden Notebook" in 1962, [it] instantly established herself as one of the most important literary voices of her generation.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>Q1. Why is "it" wrong? I thought it clearly referred to "the golden notebook. </p>

<hr>

<p>And some other questions I have to further my understanding of English grammar</p>

<ol>
<li> "New Zealand's Peninsula [is the border of an undersea canyon, being home to the sperm whale and giant squid.]"</li>
</ol>

<p>Q2. I know the indicated portion is wrong, (by ear it just sounds terrible) but what's so wrong about it? Doesn't "being" modify the noun preceding it, in this case "canyon"? </p>

<p>Q3. Is the phrase "case with" unidiomatic? I saw it, and was unsure; "case of" is the phrase I'm more familiar with.</p>

<p>Q4. The book is useful because it offers not only [philosophy and theory] but also [advice for bla bla bla]</p>

<p>Q4. With this setup (not only _______ but also ____<strong><em>) is it required that the two _</em></strong>____'s be parallel? Like in the example above, it has nouns (philosophy, theory, advice) following the "not only" and "but also"</p>

<ol>
<li> Five years in the writing, her new book is both a response to her critic's mistrust [with] her earlier findings...</li>
</ol>

<p>Q5. "with" should be "in" right? Are there any other alternatives?</p>

<ol>
<li> Despite its cultural importance, the Daily Gazette [lost] 70% of its subscribers since 1920 and, by 1955, was losing as much as $200k a year.</li>
</ol>

<p>Q6. Lost is wrong because it should be "had lost" correct? My understanding is that the past perfect is necessary when describing an action that comes before another past action (which is the losing 200k in 1955). Is this reasoning correct?</p>

2

<p>Also another idiom question: is “succeed IN” the only correct form? The question had “succeed WITH” which was wrong.</p>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Look at the rest of the sentence. There are words such as “herself” and “her generation”. She is the main subject of the sentence so the pronoun must refer to her, so it should be “she”.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>“with” should be “of”</p>

5

<p>

“lost” should be “has lost”
If you invert the first part of the sentence, it makes this error fix clearer:
“Since 1920, the Daily Gazette has lost 70% of its subscribers.”</p>

6

<ol>
<li>When Doris Lessing published “the Golden Notebook” in 1962, [it] instantly established herself as one of the most important literary voices of her generation.</li>
</ol>

<p>For your first question: “it” should be “she.” Since the sentence follows up with “herself” we know that the word in the parenthesis must be referring to the author. The “it” can only refer to the book, and we know that it the sentence means to say that the author “established herself as one of the most important literary voice of her generation.” Hope that made at least a little sense…:p</p>

<p>I am pretty sure “succeeded in” is correct, at least in most cases.</p>

<ol>
<li>“New Zealand’s Peninsula [is the border of an undersea canyon, being home to the sperm whale and giant squid.]”</li>
</ol>

<p>The “being” is not only unnecessary but also awkward. You could simply remove it from the sentence and everything would make sense. “being home…” is referring to the undersea canyon, so it should be as close to the phrase it is modifying. The “being” is extraneous. </p>

<p>Q4. The book is useful because it offers not only [philosophy and theory] but also [advice for bla bla bla]</p>

<p>Yes, they must both be parallel. The words “offers” refers to must both be nouns in this case. </p>

<p>I’m not sure about the following; I think it should be [has lost] but you may be right. Hopefully someone else will know for sure…</p>

<ol>
<li>Despite its cultural importance, the Daily Gazette [lost] 70% of its subscribers since 1920 and, by 1955, was losing as much as $200k a year.</li>
</ol>

7

<p>Q3. Is the phrase “case with” unidiomatic? I saw it, and was unsure; “case of” is the phrase I’m more familiar with.</p>

<p>Depends on the sentence/context. Here are two examples, one (validly) using “case with” and the other “case of.”</p>

<p>1) As is the case with most professional athletes, he receives a high salary. (“case of” would not make sense in this context.)
2) The case of the missing cookies perplexed us for months. (“case with” would be unidiomatic here.)</p>