<p>According to some posts in this board, for ISE you don't need to look for the best way to phrase the sentence; as long as it's grammatically correct, you mark "no error". Soooo, what's wrong with the following: *</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Although the politician was initially very sensitive to [being criticized] by the press...</p></li>
<li><p>The new system, which uses remote cameras [in the catching of] speeding motorists ... --> accdg to BB it's supposed to be "to catch"</p></li>
<li><p>In 1508, the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon - the same Ponce de Leon who later [sought] the fountain of youth - landed on Puerto Rico.</p></li>
<li><p>The exchange between the teacher and the student promotes learning far different from that which results [as] the student listens but does not participate --> answer is "when". What's the difference between "as" and "when"?</p></li>
<li><p>The survey showed that most shoppers who drive prefer the mall [over] downtown stores... --> The original word used there is "more than" and BB corrected it with "to" ... is "over" okay though?</p></li>
<li><p>Work was only a means of survival rather than a way [to improve] the standard of living. --> Is "of improving" okay? I mean, doesn't it have to be parallel to "means OF survival"? When should I check for parallelism and when should I not?</p></li>
<li><p>... part of a plan [to withhold] high grades --> Is "of withholding" okay? When do I use "to" and when do I use "of"? Or in these cases (questions 6 and 7) I follow the basic "rule" that as long as there's nothing wrong anyways, don't change it?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>* Improving Sentences: *</p>
<p>Many communities in my state are forming neighborhood watch programs [for it will deter criminals].</p>
<p>a. that will deter
b. for the deterrence of</p>
<p>--> A. But doesn't that change the meaning of the sentence? From what I understood, communities are forming neighborhood watch programs FOR THE PURPOSE OF deterring criminals (the WHY), and not the WHAT which A states.</p>
<p>* And what I hate most ... WILL vs. WOULD *</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the opening of the new library complex, previously scheduled for next September, [would] be delayed for several months because of construction difficulties. --> answer is "will" because it "indicates the future as viewed from a present perspective rather than a past perspective" --> huh?? how am I supposed to know that?</p>
<p>One isn’t sensitive to being criticized; one is sensitive to criticism itself. To be sensitive is to be responsive. If you respond poorly to criticism, then you are very sensitive to the criticism. You are not sensitive to the act of being criticized… For example, you are sensitive to a sickness or disease, not the state of being sick or the state of contracting the disease.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say the phrase “uses remote cameras in the catching…” to describe one action (using remote cameras) that occurs in ANOTHER action (catching speeding motorists). But “the catching of speeding motorists” isn’t an actual action–that is, an actual event. It is not like it occurred in the past and you are referring to it. It is the hypothetical purpose of the cameras, not anything indicative. So you say “…to catch,” which means “…in order to catch.” </p>
<p>In other words, “the catching of speeding motorists” refers to an event, or the accumulation of all the events in which speeding motorists are caught. How do we know that cameras are used in all of these events? We don’t. It is like saying, “guns are used in the killing of people,” which isn’t true, because people are killed in different ways. “The killing of people” encompasses all of these ways; “guns are used to kill” only encompasses the particular function of guns and nothing else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Sought” is the past tense of “seek.” So this is correct because Ponce de Leon sought (did the seeking in the past). Also correct, perhaps more accurate, is “would seek,” where “would” means “was going to” (“would” is hte past tense of “will”). Since we are talking about Ponce de Leon in 1508, we speak as if we were there: in 1508, Ponce de Leon was going to seek, or was getting ready to seek the fountain of youth. Both “sought” and “would seek” is correct, I believe. But more accurate is “would seek” because we are talking about the “same Ponce de Leon” from 1508, as opposed to the one we know in the present, which would require our speaking in the past tense. I hope you understood my rambling explanation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similarly to the second question, “as” is too indicative. It implies that the student’s listening is going on. It isn’t. It’s just hypothetical: the result of a student’s participation is far different from the result of a student’s lack of participation. You can think of this observation as scientific: You can see the result of gravity when you throw a ball in the air. “When” means “whenever.” “Whenever” implies that time isn’t a factor; the result or observation is true throughout. “As” implies that time is a factor; one must occur as the other occurs, which is true, but not as accurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, “more than” is wrong because “prefer X more than Y” implies that you prefer X, and you prefer Y, but you prefer X more. This is not the case; you prefer one, and not the other, not both to varying degrees.</p>
<p>That being said, both “prefer X to Y” and “prefer X over Y” are correct. But “prefer X to Y” is a LOT more common. I wouldn’t say “prefer X over Y” is wrong though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only thing that has to be parallel is “means” and “way,” because they are being compared by “rather than” (“means…rather than…a way”), and they are parallel. The prepositions and the objects of them (“means of survival” and “way to improve”) do not have to be parallel. Parallelism is only needed when two things are being modified by the same thing: Mary likes swimming, dancing, and hiking. In this sentence, the three gerunds are being modified by “likes.” They are all common things that Mary likes. Not every structure in a sentence has to be parallel.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t know if “way of improving” is correct. I know for sure that “way to improve” is more common and thus likely more preferred. “Improving” is too indicative of some action. “To improve” indicates the purpose of the “way.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same as the question above. “Plan of withholding” is lousy. You usually say “way of X” or “plan of X” if X is NOT a gerund (a word that ends with -ing): “plan of survival,” “the way of New York City,” etc. It’s just less graceful to use a gerund (“a plan of withholding”) when you can just use the actual verb (“a plan to withhold”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Will” communicates purpose. How do we know something will happen in the future? We don’t. We can only predict it through a purpose. We say the program will deter criminals because we developed the program with the purpose of doing that.</p>
<p>To avoid resorting to these technical mishaps, stop overthinking things. If an answer choice seems like it slightly changes the meaning of the sentence, but is 100% grammatically correct, it is the correct answer. The test-makers always make all the incorrect answer choices grammatically incorrect so as to not confuse anyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Would” is the past tense of “will”: “He said he would come”; “he said he was going to come.”</p>
<p>This sentence is a simple sentence indicating something that will happen in the future.</p>
<p>The mayor claimed that a majority of the property owners ** would have favored her proposal if put ** to the vote.</p>
<p>(A) would have favored her proposal if put
(B) * would have favored her proposal if it had been put *</p>
<p>–> What’s wrong with A?</p>
<p>By including pieces of cloth, newspaper, wallpaper, and other materials in his work, ** Picassos innovation had an important influence on ** twentieth-century art.</p>
<p>(D) Picasso was influential, with his innovation, over
(E) * the innovative Picasso was an important influence on *</p>
<p>–> What’s wrong with D?</p>
<p>Once American films looked slick and commercial compared to European imports; ** now, almost the reverse is true ** .</p>
<p>(A) * now, almost the reverse is true <a href=“C”>/i</a> instead, there is almost a reversal now
(D) now it is almost the reverse that is true</p>
<p>–> What’s wrong with C and D?</p>
<p>Some plants use chemical signals that repel insects, and ** also, these ** signals help to put neighboring plants on alert so they can mount their own defenses.</p>
<p>–> Why is that wrong? And what should it be replaced with?</p>
<p>* From 1566 until * 1576 Santa Elena, now an excavation site in South Carolina, was the capital of Spanish Florida; however, it ** has become ** an English settlement by 1735.</p>
<p>–> Isn’t it supposed to be “from … to”? What should "has become be replaced with? </p>
<p>When M. R. Harrington, an archaeologist from the Museum of the American Indian, began to excavate the ruins he named the Pueblo Grande de Nevada, he unearthed artifacts ** indicating ** a 500-year occupation by indigenous peoples.</p>
<p>–> Isn’t the clause a vague modifier? It can either mean “the artifacts indicate the 500-year occupation…” or “he unearthed artifacts, indicating a 500-year occupation…” So shouldn’t it be “that indicate” to be clearer?</p>
<p>A writer who well understood the plight of the underprivileged, ** many acclaim Richard Wright as ** the novelist of the downtrodden.</p>
<p>(C) Richard Wright is being acclaimed by many as
(D) * Richard Wright has been widely acclaimed as *</p>
<p>–> What’s wrong with C?</p>
<p>In the early songs of the Beatles, one hears plaintive Blues-inspired melodies that would seem to be more ** a product of rural southern America than an English industrial city. **</p>
<p>(B) a product from rural southern America than that of an English industrial city
(E) * a product of rural southern America than of an English industrial city *</p>
<p>–> Isn’t the comparison between “a product of …” and “THAT <product> of …”? So how is E parallel?</product></p>
<p>“if put to the vote” is an extension of the previous clause, whose subject is “mayor” and whose object is “majority.” The mayor is not put to the vote; the majority is. Since this is a collective group of people, it is singular. It can be referred to as “it.” If there is no pronoun, then “put to the vote” modifies the subject of the sentence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To have influence over something is to basically have control over it. This is not the case; Picasso simply had influence on the art. (D) is also wordy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(C) and (D) are wordy. I can’t quite explain it. It is almost like changing “I am happy” to “there is happiness in me” or to “it is happiness that is in me.” (D) also lacks a comma after “now” and (C) uses “instead” which sounds awkward and unnecessary with “now.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There should be a comma before “also”: “[clause A], and, also, [clause B].” Surrounding it with commas renders it almost optional in the sentence; you can effectively remove it without affecting the sentence: “Some plants use chemical signals that repel insects, and these signals help to put neighboring plants…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both “from…until” and “from…to” are correct. Not everything is an idiom and correct in only one way. “From…until” makes perfect grammatical sense.</p>
<p>“has become” should be “had become.” It is in the past perfect tense because it signifies something that started in the past and ended in the past. “Has become,” on the other hand, signifies something that started in the past and still is in effect now. “By 1735” signifies that it has to be in the past perfect “had become.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would need a comma before “indicating” for it to modify the subject M. R. Harrington. Putting it right after “artifacts” without a comma indicates that it is an adjective that modifies it. The artifacts are doing the indicating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The sentence refers to the praise and acclaim that Wright has accumulated over the years and how the praise is extending into the present. The present perfect “has been” signifies an action that had an effect for a long time and still is. (C) is too indicative of something happening in the present; it may imply that he was never acclaimed in the past. The point of acknowledging a person’s legacy is to look back and see the acclaim the person has received throughout the years, not just whether he or she is being acclaimed at the present. It just doesn’t match the tone or intent of the sentence.</p>
<p>
</product></p>
<p>There is only one product here. No two products are being compared. The comparison lies in the location of the product. X is more OF SOUTHERN AMERICA than [it is] OF AN ENGLISH CITY. It is not comparing two products X and Y; it is merely comparing one possible location of X to one not-so-possible location of X.</p>
<p>By the end of the eighteenth century, watchmaking technology had greatly improved, ** with watches included in the standard equipment for military personnel. **</p>
<p>–> What’s wrong with it? It’s supposed to be “and watches had become standard equipment for military personnel”</p>
<p>A flurry of do-it-yourself books on the market today ** is inspiring homeowners into doing their own repairing. **</p>
<p>–> Answer is “is inspiring homeowners to do their own repairs”</p>
<p>** Although the candidate promised both to cut taxes and improve services, he ** failed to keep either of them after the election.</p>
<p>(A) Although the candidate made promises both to cut taxes and improve services, he
(B) Having promised, first, to cut taxes and, second, to improve services, the candidate</p>
<p>–> Answer is A, but isn’t there a lack of parallelism? BOTH “to cut taxes” AND “To improve services”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are drawbacks to every solution ** that they think of. **</p>
<p>(A) that was thought of
(E) that has been proposed</p>
<p>The sentence is talking about two things that had happened “by the end of the eighteenth century”:</p>
<p>(1) Watchmaking technology had greatly improved.
(2) Watches had become standard equipment for military personnel.</p>
<p>Thus, you simply say: “(1), and (2).” The original sentence tries to condense it but fails. Basically it should be stated simply: “X happened, and Y happened”; not “X happened with Y happening with it” or some variation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The correct structure is “X inspired Y to do something,” NOT “X inspired Y into doing something.” “To” is associated with extension, consequence, etc.: “sentenced to jail.” It connects some abstract place that the subject is going to. So if I inspire you TO DO something, I am influencing you or pushing you to do it. For the average person, it is best to just memorize phrases like these.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the structures following “both” should be parallel. However, that notwithstanding, (A) is correct. Maybe I’m wrong. College Board has made mistakes before. I am pretty sure that it has to be parallel. For example, if you say “both babies weigh 10 pounds,” you mean that one baby weighs 10 pounds and the other baby weighs 10 pounds. The structures are treated individually and thus both need to be parallel.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The simple past tense “was” is indicative of some action. If you say “there was a war in 2005,” you are strictly talking about 2005 and the event of the war itself. However, if you use the present perfect tense and say “there has been a war since 2005,” you are not talking specifically about the war or 2005; you are talking about the period starting in 2005 and continuing into the present.</p>
<p>Thus, “every solution that was thought of” is simply referring to every solution that was thought of at a specific time. “Every solution that has been proposed,” however, refers to every solution that has been proposed in a long period of time.</p>
<p>When something is proposed (put forward for consideration), it gets discussed. Then another idea is proposed, and it is discussed. This process happens over and over again. It makes no sense to refer to these ideas that have developed over time as “every solution that was thought of.” It is grammatically accurate to refer to them as “every solution that HAS BEEN thought of” or “every solution that HAS BEEN proposed.” The former isn’t that accurate though, because one can think of an idea but not propose it.</p>
<p>* In royal palaces there were to be found many comforts that medieval castles did not offer. These had dark dungeons and dark, drafty living quarters instead. * <– Combine the sentences.</p>
<p>(A) Lacking many comforts compared to royal palaces, medieval castles instead offered dark dungeons and damp, drafty living quarters.</p>
<p>(B) With their dark dungeons and damp, drafty living quarters, medieval castles offered few of the comforts to be found in royal palaces.</p>
<p>–> According to BB: Choice (A) is unsatisfactory. This way of combining sentences 6 and 7 awkwardly introduces the first discussion of the features of palaces as a modifying clause, interrupting the natural flow of the paragraph. Also, the use of “instead” implies that medieval castles “offered dark dungeons and damp, drafty living quarters” as an alternative to the comforts of palaces, an illogical statement.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In 1850 Jim Beckworth discovered in the mountains of the Sierra Nevada a pass soon to become an important gateway to California gold-rush country.
–>* Is it supposed to be " that soon became"? *</p></li>
<li><p>The students found fieldwork in the state forest more exciting and dangerous than any of them had anticipated, having to be rescued by helicopter during a fire.
–> * BB changed it to ** anticipated: they had to be ** and although I know that’s the better answer, what’s wrong with the original? Based on my observation of other BB questions, if there’s a participle (-ing words functioning as adjectives) with a comma before it, it usually refers back to the subject. In the question above, it would make sense to say “Having to be rescued by helicopter during a fire, the students found fieldwork in the state forest more exciting and dangerous than any of them had anticipated” right? I just inverted the word order. </p></li>
<li><p>Of ancient origin, the game of checkers was played in Egypt during the time of the pharaohs and is mentioned in the writings of Homer and Plato.
–> * Why is it supposed to be in present tense? </p></li>
<li><p>In the early 1920’s, Louis Armstrong recorded his first solos as a member of King Oliver’s Creole Jazz Band in such pieces as “Chimes Blues” and “Tears,” which he composed with pianist Lil Hardin.
–> * Disclaimer: That’s a sentence from BB, but not a question… In sentences like that, does the “which” automatically modify the nearest “main” noun (i.e. ** pieces ) and not the supporting information that comes with the “main” noun (i.e. ** “Chimes Blues” and “Tears” ** or just ** “Tears” ** or … what is it? I don’t really know)? I usually conclude that pronouns/modifiers refer back to whatever noun is nearest; in the sentence, that would be … well for me it’s vague; I don’t know if it’s just Tears or Chimes Blues and Tears, so I would probably mark “which” as an error… *</p></li>
</ol>
Think about which is the more important statement. The fact that medieval castles did not have the comforts found in royal palaces, or the fact that medieval castles were dirty? The fact that the medieval castles had inferior living quarters is only mentioned to further show the contrast between the castles and the palaces. The main point is to show the differences between the two.</p>
<p>Choice (A) says the castles were dark, damp, and drafty. It views the fact that they lack what royal palaces have as additional information, as opposed to the main function of the sentence. Yet it is used as a participial/“modifying” clause (“Lacking many comforts compared to royal palaces, medieval castles offered…”).
“Instead” is misplaced because it implies that the inferior living quarters were offered as an alternative to the superior living quarters. It implies that given two options they purposely chose the inferior living quarters.</p>
<p>Choice (B) flips it around by putting the fact that royal palaces and medieval castles are different in the main clause and putting the fact that royal palaces are dirty in the modifying clause: “With their dark dungeons and damp, drafty living quarters, medieval castles offered few of the comforts to be found in royal palaces.” The bold part is the inessential part of the sentence. What comes after is the main part.</p>
<p>
It should be “that would soon become.” “Would” is the past tense of “will.” For example, if you say right now that you WILL do something, 5 years later you might look back and say that you were going to do it, or that you WOULD do it: “It is now 2015. Back in 2010, I said I would (was going to) become the most successful person in my town.” It involves looking in the past, and referring to the future within the past (I hope that makes sense). </p>
<p>“Soon became” doesn’t make sense because “soon” implies that it has not happened yet (it will happen soon), while “became” implies that it HAS happened. Obviously it happened in the past since it occurred in 1850, but we are speaking in terms of 1850. In 1850, it did not happen yet. It was going to happen in 1850; hence, when Jim Beckworth discovered the pass in 1850, it would become an important gateway to California, which presumably came about in 1851, 1852, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the participle modifies the subject. But it also roughly implies that two actions are happening at the same time. The students did not find the fieldwork fascinating and dangerous and suddenly have to be rescued by a helicopter. It is best to separate the two incidents into independent clauses (“the students found fieldwork…” and “they had to be rescued…”) and tie them together with a colon, as opposed to trying to put them together with a comma and a participial clause.</p>
<p>“Which” refers to “Chimes Blues” and “Tears” collectively. “Which” can refer to more than one noun: “I listened to a lot of Michael Jackson and Elvis, who were musical influences of mine.” “Who” and “which” share the same usage in this case. If the writer only wanted to refer to “Tears,” the writer would say “the latter of which.” If the writer wanted to emphasize the collection, the writer would say “both of which.”</p>
<p>I’m kinda doubting whether the following sentences really ARE without error. Please explain if it’s correct or not, thanks!</p>
<p>from Barron’s:</p>
<p>Our interscholastic athletic schedules were made too recklessly, * without sufficient planning behind them. * –> I’m assuming the phrase modifies “schedules” then?</p>
<p>Annie Oakley boasted that she could shoot * better than any cowboy * at the rodeo; then she proved it. –> Not “better than any other cowboy”?</p>
<p>Residents of Chicago have just as much right to complain about the cold as residents of Minneapolis, * which endures sub-freezing temperatures most of the winter. * –> So what does the clause modify: residents of Minneapolis, or just Minneapolis? Because if, as I assume, it is referring to the residents, shouldn’t “which” be “who”?</p>
<p>The origin of the Black Death of the 14th century, * possibly the world’s deadliest epidemic *, is thought to be central China. –> Isn’t the phrase modifying the subject, which is “origin”? And that would make the phrase a misplaced modifier?</p>
<p>Mike read a novel * where * the author, experimenting with a new structure, devoted a separate chapter to each character. –> Barron’s corrected it with “in which”. Why? What’s wrong with “where”?</p>
<p>Helene hopes to convince Chuckie that she neither is interested in going out with other boys nor that she ever loved anyone else in a romantic way. –> Answer was No Error… ? Why?</p>
<p>Two Coast Guard crews were dispatched to check * the anonymous informant’s warning saying he * had observed a boatload of illegal immigrants approaching Florida’s west coast. –> It’s wrong because “he” does not have an antecendent, right?</p>
<p>Today there is more violence * than there was in * the 1950s and 1960s, when guns were more difficult to obtain. –> The answer is “than in”. I thought it’s comparing “there is [more] violence today” and “there [violence] was violence in…”?</p>
<p>The achievements as well as the failures of the space program have been * a matter of contention * for many years as many interest groups compete for a share of the federal budget. –> Why is it " a matter … "?</p>
<p>Among the Inuit peoples of Arctic Canada, poetry contests are held to settle conflicts [that might otherwise be disruptive to families and communities]</p>
<p>If she’s not a cowboy herself, she would shoot better than any cowboy. If she’s a cowboy, then she’d shoot better than any other (than herself) cowboy. She’s obviously not a cowboy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Minneapolis is modified. Even if we used “who endure”, it would be ambiguous as to whether we were referring to the residents of Chicago or Minneapolis. There’s only one thing which can refer to, here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is modifying the Black Death of the 14th century. It’s not misplaced. Let’s remove the modifier. The sentence now becomes:</p>
<p>The origin of the Black Death of the 14th century is thought to be central China.</p>
<p>Let’s insert another modifier.</p>
<p>The origin of the Black Death of the 14th century, an era almost forgotten, is thought to be central China.</p>
<p>Or</p>
<p>The origin of the Black Death, possibly the worlds deadliest epidemic, which spread in the 14th century, is thought to be central China.</p>
<p>So, they’re all correct. There’s no ambiguity in any of these. Removing the modifier keeps the meaning of the sentence intact. IF it was modifying the origin, it would read:</p>
<p>The origin, possibly the world’s deadliest epidemic, of the Black Death of the 14th century, is thought to be central China.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Where” makes it look like the novel is a physical location. Colloquially, “where” is used often, but isn’t strictly correct. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Usually, the sentence would be written like this:</p>
<p>Helene hopes to convince Chuckie that she neither is interested in going out with other boys nor has she ever loved anyone else in a romantic way.</p>
<p>I don’t like the second “that”, there. It gives the sentence various weird meanings. Let’s hope something so bad never appears on the real test.</p>
<p>Anyone else with an explanation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the error is that a warning is saying something. It should be, “the anonymous informant’s warning which said that he had observed…”</p>
<p>“He” is obviously the informant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beats me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Achievements form a collective set. “As well as the failures,” is only an aside here.</p>
<p>The achievements have been a matter of contention…</p>
<p>And the failures too.</p>
<p>So: The achievements, as well as the failures, have been a matter of contention…</p>