<p>The farmer should not (have been) so careless (as) to leave the door of the house unbolted (when) he (had gone) to bed. No error.</p>
<p>The answer is "had gone". Apparently, "had gone" is unnecessary and "went" should be used.</p>
<p>Can anyone explain to me why?</p>
<p>Here’s another one:</p>
<p>(Hopefully), we (will be) able to complete the building (before) the rainy season sets (in).</p>
<p>This is the answer explanation: “Change to we hope because hopefully is an adverb and yet it is not modifying a verb.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t “hopefully” modify the entire sentence?</p>
<p>None (of us) (knows) what the outcome of the battle (between) the coordinator and (us) will be. No error.</p>
<p>So how is this not redundant??? The answer is: No Error.</p>
<p>Another confusing one.</p>
<p>He was (not merely) expected to contribute funds to the project, (but) to work as hard (as) the (other) patrons. No error.</p>
<p>The explanation is: To make the sentence construction parallel, put “not merely” after “expected”.
As much as I agree with that explanation, I think that the correct construction is: “not merely…but also”. Given that, must Choice B also be wrong???</p>
<p>A possible first step [in developing] a nonsexist vocabulary [with which] to analyze the works [of] the nineteenth-century writer Elizabeth Gaskell would be [to stop] referring to her as “Mrs. Gaskell.” [No error] </p>
<p>The answer is “No Error”. But my question is how come “would” is used in the sentence when there is no conditional and it’s not used as the past tense of “will”???</p>
<p>“Had gone” is meant to express a post-past action. In the sentence there’s none, so the right answer is “went”.
For the second question. Are you sure there’s a comma after “hopefully”?, if not, the right answer is indeed “hope”.
As for “not merely…but” there’s no “also” I think. It works when it is “not only… But also”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What do you mean by “post-past action”? Anyways, the sentence is in the past, and I thought we could use past perfect to distinguish between two past events: “Duration before something in the past” ([ENGLISH</a> PAGE - Past Perfect](<a href=“http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html]ENGLISH”>Past Perfect Tense | ENGLISH PAGE))</p></li>
<li><p>Yes, there is a comma. I just found the answer to this in some previous thread. “Hopefully” modifies a verb, and in this sentence, it seems to be modifying “we”, which is a noun. It also can’t modify the whole sentence, because the sentence is not a verb. Thus, it should change to: “With hope,…”. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>3.</p>
<ol>
<li>Yes, I guess you’re right on this one. “Not merely…but” is the correct construction. Example from the Free Online Dictionary: “His were not merely crimes of theft but of violence against elderly people”</li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>So, we’re left with Number 1 and 3.</p>
<p>I’m sorry; I have two other ones.</p>
<p>The last man on earth (will) abandon his ruined house (for) a cave, (and) his woven clothes for an (animal’s) skin. No error.</p>
<p>Answer is no error.
I thought “, and” is a coordinating conjunction, and it signals an independent clause. So, shouldn’t the sentence be:
“The last man on earth will abandon his ruined house for a cave and his woven clothes for an animal’s skin.” ???</p>
<p>The company (bowed) to (pressure,) now (it) has removed the offensive advertisement( from) the hoarding.
The answer is B, because it should be “pressure;”. Would it also be correct if one said:
The company bowed to pressure, now (that) it has removed the offensive advertisement from the hoarding.</p>
<p>Someone please clean this mess up :P</p>
<p>Im more than a tad rusty, so well see how this goes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Had gone is an instance of the past perfect tense. The past perfect is used when some past action occurred before another past action. For example,</p>
<p>I rode around the block on my new flamingo to show it off. I had already shown him to the neighbors several times.</p>
<p>I rode is the simple past tense; I had shown is the past perfect tense. The showing occurred before the riding, which itself nonetheless occurred in the past.</p>
<p>It is erroneous to use the past perfect tense when no more recent past action is specified. The farmer in your sentence went to bed in the past, but not before any other specified past action. He did not go to bed before leaving the door unbolted. He went to bed, the simple past tense, is instead correct here.</p>
<p>Heres a variation on the sentence, correctly showcasing the past perfect tense:</p>
<p>The farmer should not have been so careless as to leave the door of the house unbolted when he arrived home after he had tended to his flamingos.</p>
<p>He tended to his flamingos before the past action of arriving home, so its alright to use the past perfect tense: he had tended. However, I should also note that the simple past (he tended) also works here because the semantic implication of distinct past chronology is imparted by the conjunction after. (Either way is fine in that case.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The use of hopefully in this context is a popular matter of debate among grammarians. Some declare it wrong, citing the reason you do that hopefully must clearly modify some verb. I disagree: Hopefully ought to be able to modify the entirety of the clause it precedes, as this is commonly accepted as a function of adverbs.</p>
<p>I would be surprised if this question is from an official SAT test. Its too controversial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This too strikes me as a question that is unlikely to be from an official SAT test. None was traditionally regarded as invariably singular (purportedly derived from not one), but most sourcesincluding, in practice, the SAT as far as I can recallnow consider it flexible based on the singular or plurality of the noun in the succeeding prepositional phrase. So in this sentence knows would under that paradigm be correct instead as the plural know. </p>
<p>I dont, however, see any redundancy as you do. What in particular seems redundant?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not merely but also (or more commonly only rather than merely) is indeed the standard form of the correlative conjunction, but also is always optional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The specification that to stop referring to her as Mrs. Gaskell is a possibility allows for the use of would. Possibility is a future reference. The matter is a bit thorny, though, as the future possibility exists as such in the present, so one could also conceptually justify the use of the present is to stop referring rather than would be to stop referring. Both are alright.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The comma is necessary to indicate that the adverbial modification is of the clause as a whole rather than the particular verb phrase be able. If hopefully appeared slightly later in the sentence, it would for the same reason need to be offset by commas or else the modification would technically (and illogically) be of the verb phrase, not the clause.</p>
<p>So this is correct too:</p>
<p>We will, hopefully, be able to complete the building before the rainy season sets in.</p>
<p>But this is incorrect:</p>
<p>We will hopefully be able to complete the building before the rainy season sets in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, youre right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be almost correct to write now that. There is very nearly a causal relationship between the removal of the advertisement and the bow to pressure, as is necessary for the use of now that. However, it would be more precise to note that, in the terms of the sentence, the removal of the advertisement is itself the bow to pressure rather than its effect. So you could correctly write</p>
<p> The company is said to have bowed to pressure, now that it has removed the offensive advertisement from the hoarding.</p>
<p>Is this subtle distinction clear?</p>
<p>(one other point on the “pressure” sentence: missing “that” is not tested on the SAT)</p>
<p>^ “Now that” is an idiom and could be tested on the SAT. What the SAT won’t test is the omission of “that” when it is being used in conventional relative pronoun contexts, as in</p>
<p>I hope you are a nice lobster.</p>
<p>I hope that you are a nice lobster.
Either one is fine there.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, thanks so much.</p>
<p>I’m still confused though about one question:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought possibility can only be indicated by modal verbs, which exclude “would”.
I also thought that “would” is used as the present condition, but the problem is that there is no “if”. And I guess it’s not used as the past tense of “will”. So what is the grammatical explanation for the function of “would” in this context?</p>
<p>If you (were willing) to ask for directions, instead of (doggedly) driving on, we might get to (our) destination (sooner). No error.</p>
<p>Answer: No Error.</p>
<p>Now I’m really confused. Conditionals should use only “could” and “would”; why is “might” being used?
Is the first half of the sentence in the past tense of the subjunctive???</p>
<p>I think I found an answer to my previous post. Correct me, silver turtle please, if I am wrong: Conditionals can use “might”, “ought to”, “should”, etc… Thus, the sentence is correct. The first half of the sentence, though, does appear to be in the subjunctive, and subjunctives are used with conditionals in one type, and “If simple past, present conditional” is that type.</p>
<p>I’m still confused, though, about “would” (the post before the previous one).</p>
<p>Another:
Ralph Nader defiantly proclaimed that even if he would have known how the election would turn out, he would still have run for president.
a) even if he would have known how the election would turn out.
b) even if he would have known how the elction turns out.
c) even had he known how the election would turn out.
d) even if he would know how the election will turn out.
e) if even he would have konwn how the election would turn out</p>
<p>This question has already been answered in CC, but only an explanation of why B,C,D, and E are wrong has been provided. How do you justify Choice A? What type of conditional is it?? I have never seen: “if I would have, would have”…</p>