<p>The red cross workers had not expected the <em>refugees from</em> the flooded plaint <em>to be</em> as desperate and as undernourished <em>as those</em> whom they <em>had seen</em> earlier that week <em>no error</em></p>
<p>the answer is no error, but shouldn't <em>had seen</em> be "saw"? since that would make the sentence something like:</p>
<p>workers had not expected the refugees.... they saw earlier that week. </p>
<p>since saw = past, then the past perfect = past of the past</p>
<p>Another one, plz help</p>
<p>pg 814.</p>
<p>When we read, we first form innumerable <em>impressions and then those impressions are evaluated</em> as we read on.</p>
<p>I'm having a very hard time telling between these to choices:</p>
<p>b) <em>impressions and then evaluate those impressions</em>
d) <em>impressions, then we evaluate those impressions</em></p>
<p>twink: i said, "saw", never said "had saw". so why doesn't "saw" work?</p>
<p>and after analyzing the 2nd one more, i think it's stylistically better since it avoids using "we" in the sentence 4 times... but i'm sure someone else has a more technical explanation</p>
<p>The comma in the second sentence creates a faulty transition. You would either need a conjunction, such as and, or you would need to change the comma to a semicolon.
The original error in the sentence is a change from active to passive voice.</p>
<p>For the first sentence, the red cross workers saw the ones "earlier that week" BEFORE they saw these flooded ones that they didn't expect them to be as desperate. Because the action happened BEFORE an action already in the PAST, as indicated by the phrase "earlier that week," it must be HAD seen. Therefore there is No Error in the sentence.</p>
<p>the workers had already SEEN a group of refugees BEFORE they saw the other group of refugees whom they thought wouldn't be as desperate as the first group. whom they've seen earlier that week.. </p>
<p>thx flip for this one, but i still don't get the comma one..</p>
<p>you say you'd need a conjunction/semicolon to join it, but doesn't that require the second sentence to be independent? "then we evaluate those impressions as we read on" doesn't seem to convey a complete idea. like, what happened before then?</p>
<p>Yes, the "then we evaluate those expressions" is an entirely new thought that stops the flow of the sentence, and it is an independent clause. Because of this, you can't just have a comma in between. There are three options for changing it: you can add a conjunction such as "and", etc. after the comma; you can change the comma to a semicolon, or you can split the thoughts apart completely with a period.</p>
<p>hmm thx for responses, by can someone explain WHY that clause "then we evaluate those expressions" is an independent clause? it sounds very dependent to me</p>
<p>Would you agree that "we evaluate those expressions" by itself is an independent clause? The "then" that is added is simply an indication of time order (First we do this. Then, we do something else). It doesn't make the clause dependent like a subordinating conjunction (such as Though, or Unless etc) would</p>
<p>hmm i just came across this question, please help! i'm confused about this independent clause thingy</p>
<p>one of the first signs of spring is the budding of <em>plants, another sign is</em> the lengthening of days.</p>
<p>a) plants, another sign is
b) plants; another sign is
c) plants, another sign would be
d) plants, also that
e) plants and another sign is</p>
<p>i mean, how come when you read the sentence, "another sign is the lengthening of the days" it sounds like an DEPENDENT clause? like whats the previous sign?</p>
<p>You are clearly confused when trying to identify independent vs. dependent clauses. Any sentence that could stand alone is independent. Just because it uses "another" at the beginning of the clause doesn't mean it has to be attached to the other half of the sentence. If you read the original sentence, it is clear that it stops abrubtly at the comma, creating what CB likes to call a "faulty transition." The answer to this question is B. The semicolon correctly fixes the bad transition.</p>
<p>Since you are having trouble with the grammar on the SAT, i strongly suggest you buy PR's Grammar Smart. It is clear, concise, and easy to follow.</p>
<p>"Another sign is the lengthening of the days" by itself is a complete sentence. Like "then" and "later" in previous examples, then "another" simply puts the actions in order. It does not, however, make the clause dependent. Compare the way that clause sounds to a dependent clause like "Though the rain fell". If the first clause were placed in context, the paragraph would flow properly. "The first sign is ... Another sign is .... A third sign is ...." etc. Thus, choice B is correct because a semicolon is an acceptable way to connect two independent clauses. However, you cannot just say "Though the rain fell" without having it attached to a dependent clause. </p>
<p>hmm so is it kinda true that a sentence that doesn't have a subordinating conjunction, but has a subject + verb is a independent... such as these sentences that show the order that things go in? </p>
<p>like would "now" be another case?</p>
<p>hmm and tanman, i'm getting this idea from your example:</p>
<p>If you can take a mystery clause, slap a coordinating conjunction, and then join it to another sentence. if it makes sense, then it is a independent, and can stand by itself. </p>
<p>like</p>
<p>"slap a coordinating conjunction on it, <em>and</em> then join it to another sentence"</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>"We failed the first time, <em>but</em> another plan can be to do it again"</p>
<p>something like this... but i'm not sure if this works (getting pretty late here, i'm kinda sluggish)</p>
<p>since this could be a counter example</p>
<p>"We like him, <em>but</em> just between you and me"</p>
<p>would just between you and me be an independent? (oh wait, i noticed that this doesn't express a complete thought)</p>
<p>also i'm aware of this methods problem because sometimes those coordinating conjunctions can also join inde + de...</p>
<p>think of it this way: an independent clause is a sentence.
I like pants. </p>
<p>A dependent clause is not a sentence.
Although I like pants. </p>
<p>one of the first signs of spring is the budding of <em>plants, another sign is</em> the lengthening of days.</p>
<p>So, what you have here is one independent clause (One of the first signs of spring is the budding of plants) and another independent clause (Another sign is the lengthening of days). you can join two related independent clauses together using a semicolon. You can also join two independent clauses together using a conjunction. </p>
<p>PS, I hope I'm not wrong.
PSS, I see you already understand, probably better than I do. This post is useless. Now I feel like a jerk.</p>
<p>rika: lol no, i still don't 100% understand it. thx for the post</p>
<p>hmm now that i think of it, that question could've been solved via the method, although its kinda very subjective now that i've seen it like 10 times..</p>
<p>One of the first signs of spring is the budding of plants, <em>and</em> another sign is the lengthening of the days.</p>
<p>adding an <em>and</em> makes sense in this sentence.</p>
<p>AHHHHH damn sats. this method doesn't work, and its almost like the damn people who wrote this question knew what i was thinking.</p>