<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I just received my Feb ACT QAS and I am stumped by one of the ACT's supposed correct answers (question 28, English)</p>
<p>They have the correct sentence written as</p>
<p>"Tyson recognizes the possibilities of his position and he always makes himself available to children who visit the planetarium.</p>
<p>The "and" does NOT have a comma in the answer choice. Unless I am missing something, a comma should be needed as these are two independent clauses..ie</p>
<p>Tyson recognizes the possibilities of his position.</p>
<p>He always makes himself available to the children who visit the planetarium.</p>
<p>Those seem like two independent clauses, with a subject, object and a verb.</p>
<p>So how can answer choice "G. position and" be correct with no comma?</p>
<p>I chose answer choice "J. position, for which he", which was wordy, but had the correct usage of a comma and FANBOYS word (for) between the two independent clauses.</p>
<p>Thanks for any help you can provide.</p>
<p>the statement IS correct. You don’t need a comma nor a transition because the sentence does not become a run on. If it babbled on then you had to use a comma. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to use.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply, but the sentence is technically a run-on since it contains two independent clauses that are not separated by a comma. Even a short sentence like: “He went to the market, and he went to the mall” needs to be separated by a comma as both clauses are independent and can stand alone as individual sentences. </p>
<p>If the sentence was:</p>
<p>“Tyson recognizes the possibilities of his position and always makes himself available to children who visit the planetarium.” </p>
<p>The sentence would not need a comma. But because the word “he” was included in the second clause, it provided a subject and therefore made the clause independent.</p>
<p>At least that’s how I understand it, but maybe I am wrong.</p>
<p>it is correct. The ACT writers are very very weird. Even in the Real ACT Prep Guide there is an English question similar to this, but the explaination is that “The sentence is perfectly logical”</p>
<p>@user:
I was taught the same way you were. But I’m pretty old! My kids were taught differently. They were taught that, like wannago said, with just two independent clauses like this, you don’t need a comma. It’s apparently not a run-on sentence unless you really babble on. When and where that all changed, I have no idea. But it’s true. There’s no longer any need for a comma, surprisingly enough.</p>
<p>Within the ACT redbook, passage five, question 72 it states:</p>
<p>“Beans are then planted on the mounds, and squash is planted between the mounds.”</p>
<p>It then asks what alternatives to the underlined portion would not be acceptable (when they ask this it means the underlined portion is acceptable as well)</p>
<p>I am having trouble seeing what makes the above example different from the question on the Feb. Test. (Two independent clauses and the word “and”, yet this time they use a comma)</p>
<p>Another example from the same passage(test 3, passage 5, line 3) in the red book (though it is not a question, it is just part of a paragraph) is this:</p>
<p>“Beans hang on the cornstalks, and squash vines sprawl everywhere.”</p>
<p>Again, it seems like the same exact type of sentence(two independent clauses and the word “and”), yet a comma is used? </p>
<p>Anyways, my score was rounded up so it’s not like this question really hurt my score. I am just finding the act writers to be a little bit lazy and unethical as they used a test they had used just a year before in December(which allowed there to be repeat test takers)., and have questions that appear to contradict their own text. I guess that’s what happens when you are essentially sharing a monopoly on college entrance exams.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a general rule, independent clauses must be separated by a comma followed by a coordinating conjunction. Here, indeed, we have two independent clauses, as the subject is repeated. Grammatically, the fact that the antecedent of the second clause’s subject is the subject of the first clause is irrelevant. Some sources, however, argue that the comma can be omitted occasionally when both clauses are short and flow well. </p>
<p>Without doubt, putting the comma in the sentence would be grammatical. Also, omitting it can be acceptable, depending on what grammar sources you subscribe to. It’s a very poor question and one that makes me hesitant about taking the ACT.</p>