Help for Writing MC Questions

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Hey guys! I have some issues with the following questions:</p>

<ol>
<li>High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates** do, this being why so many high school students** go on to pursue college degrees.</li>
</ol>

<p>(b) do, this is why so many high school students
(c) do; this fact explains why so many high school students
(d) do; this fact explaining the reason for why so many high school students
(e) do, explaining why so many high school students</p>

<p>The answer is C. Could someone please explain why this is the correct answer and why the other answers are wrong in laymen terms. I read the CB's explanations and they are quite murky.</p>

<ol>
<li>Many changes occurred while she was president of the college, and they increased its educational quality as well as effectiveness.</li>
</ol>

<p>(b) college, they both increased the educational quality and effectiveness of the college
(c) college, which both increased its educational quality as well as increased it effectiveness
(d) college; these changes increased its educational quality and effectiveness
(e) college; these changes increased both the educational quality and effectiveness of the college</p>

<p>The answer is E. Can someone please explain why this is the correct answer and why the other answers are incorrect. I am also confused by CB's explanations. Specifically, I am confused about D. CB states that its is ambiguous, but, in my opinion, it seems that its can only refer to college as that is the only logical antecedent.</p>

<p>The next two questions are kind of related.</p>

<ol>
<li>Undoubtedly, more votes in the urban ares will have voted for Julia Morton if she had taken a less conservative stand on zoning codes than she did.</li>
</ol>

<p>The answer is A. It obviously has to do with tense. Can someone please explain how to correct this error? In addition, can someone explain the difference between would and will in the usage of a sentence?</p>

<ol>
<li>Unfortunately, the opening of the new library complex, previously scheduled for next September, would be delayed for several months because of construction difficulties.</li>
</ol>

<p>C is the answer here. Could someone please explain how to correct this error? In addition, if you haven't, could you please explain the aforementioned question re-posted as follows:</p>

<p>
[quote]
In addition, can someone explain the difference between would and will in the usage of a sentence?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you in advance!</p>

2

<ol>
<li>Many changes occurred while she was president of the college, and they increased its educational quality as well as effectiveness.</li>
</ol>

<p>(b) college, they both increased the educational quality and effectiveness of the college
(c) college, which both increased its educational quality as well as increased it effectiveness
(d) college; these changes increased its educational quality and effectiveness
(e) college; these changes increased both the educational quality and effectiveness of the college</p>

<p>I got E as well, my reasoning is the following: </p>

<p>B is wrong because THEY can not be referring to CHANGES
C is wrong because it is too wordy and they used the word increased twice
D is wrong because you do not know what the word IT is referring to</p>

<ol>
<li><p>A is the correct answer because the sentence is saying “more voters will have voted”…(i assume you mean “voters”), will have implies intent on doing something while it should be would, which implies preference. (pretty sure thats why!)</p></li>
<li><p>The answer is WILL BE and not WOULD BE because WILL BE implies something that is going to happen while WOULD BE suggests that it would have happened but something else caused it not to.</p></li>
</ol>

3

<p>

</p>

<p>Please respond and point out the error in my thinking that I posted in the original post.</p>

<p>Thanks for the post! Although you did answer 3/4 of my questions, can other people please give their opinions so I can be sure?</p>

4

<p>You are right that it can only logically refer to college, but syntactically it could refer to *she<a href=“she%20is%20singular”>/i</a>. The pronoun it is therefore syntactically ambiguous, and therefore wrong (as deemed by collegeboard).</p>

5

<p>This should be a lesson- don’t ever use outside thinking and logic on writing questions. If the word ‘it’ can possibly be construed as ambiguous- it is. It can only be used if it is explicitly clear what it’s referring to.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m still not getting this. If the it wanted to refer to she, wouldn’t it be written as her? Thus, I still need someone to prove me wrong.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response guys. I would really like confirmation on the other questions and for someone to answer question 1. :D</p>

7

<p>If you have to ask yourself and debate “hm…what does the it refer to…i think it refers to “blank blank”…” then its definitely ambiguous and therefore unclear. You shouldn’t have to deduce or guess what IT is referring to, it should be obvious, and if it isn’t, then it is ambiguous.</p>

8

<p>Seriously? I appreciate the effort to explain this.</p>

<p>Can anyone else explain this in another way that is more grammatically inclined?</p>

9

<ol>
<li>High school graduates usually do not end up earning as much income as college graduates do, this being why so many high school students go on to pursue college degrees.</li>
</ol>

<p>(b) do, this is why so many high school students</p>

<p>“,” = run on</p>

<p>(c) do; this fact explains why so many high school students</p>

<p>this is correct because there is no run-on (“;” instead of “,”) and the clause following the semicolon contains a proper subject + verb agreement</p>

<p>(d) do; this fact explaining the reason for why so many high school students</p>

<p>“explaining” = gerund, obviously wrong, should be a regular tense verb–“explains” </p>

<p>(e) do, explaining why so many high school students</p>

<p>“, explaining” = ambiguous, no subject, who is doing da explaining? there are so many possible subjects in the first clause that can be doing such “explaining.” could be high school graduates. could be college graduates.</p>

<p>–</p>

<ol>
<li>Many changes occurred while she was president of the college, and they increased its educational quality as well as effectiveness.</li>
</ol>

<p>(b) college, they both increased the educational quality and effectiveness of the college</p>

<p>“,” = run-on</p>

<p>(c) college, which both increased its educational quality as well as increased it effectiveness</p>

<p>“which” = ambiguous, does not refer to anything in specific. could be the changes. could be she. could be the college.</p>

<p>(d) college; these changes increased its educational quality and effectiveness</p>

<p>(e) college; these changes increased both the educational quality and effectiveness of the college</p>

<p>i agree that both D and E can be correct. however CB wants the better answer, as they state in da directions, and E is more precise.</p>

<p>–</p>

<ol>
<li>Undoubtedly, more votes in the urban ares will have voted for Julia Morton if she had taken a less conservative stand on zoning codes than she did.</li>
</ol>

<p>it should be “would have voted” because it is the subjunctive tense. the subjunctive tense means a possibility, whereas “will…” means it is definitely going to happen</p>

<p>–</p>

<ol>
<li>Unfortunately, the opening of the new library complex, previously scheduled for next September, would be delayed for several months because of construction difficulties.</li>
</ol>

<p>it should be “will be delayed” instead of “would be delayed” because the opening is <strong>definitely</strong> going to happen (in the future). there is no room for the possibility of happening or not happening (subjunctive)</p>

<p>–
please read silverturtle’s guide about the use of “which” (almost always a mistake) and a random gerund (also almost always a mistake)</p>

<p>and google up the “subjunctive” tense and read more about dat
interesting fact btw: cb throws 1 or 2 questions testing the subjunctive and almost everyone gets it wrong dun dun dun</p>

10

<p>most common subjunctive question appears as spot-the-error, usually like this</p>

<p>if he was to eat the pie, he would have contracted bloody diarrhea</p>

<p>was should be changed to were, indicating possibility. “if” is an indicator word for such error</p>

<p>or they might give you the correct version; most people would mark “were” as incorrect because it doesn’t sound right, but it is</p>

<p>if he were to eat the pie, he would have contracted bloody diarrhea</p>

<p>a possible converse of this situation that cb would test could be</p>

<p>if he were to eat the pie, he will have contracted bloody diarrhea</p>

<p>where “will have” should be “would have” — just like what appeared in those questions you did</p>

11

<p>Thank you for the help, CheesePuffPoppin. </p>

<p>Can anyone explain question two in a grammatical sense? Surely, there must be an explanation that can eliminate D as a potential answe.r</p>

12

<p>Bump.</p>

<p>tanchar.</p>

13

<p>Bump.</p>

<p>tanchar.</p>

14

<p>Anybody?</p>

<p>tanchar.</p>

15

<p>Come on guys!</p>

16

<p>Consider this variant of the original question:</p>

<p>Many changes occurred while she was president of the college; these changes increased the effectiveness of the (office of the) president.</p>

<p>The parenthetical “office of the” is not really necessary, but I’ve added it to make my point clearer. Compare to</p>

<p>Many changes occurred while she was president of the college; these changes increased its effectiveness.</p>

<p>The point is that we do not know what the changes were, and to what they were applied. Choice E in the original (as does my first variant above) makes it clear, whereas “it” in both the original and in my variant is ambiguous. We can read into the “it” as you have done and conclude that “educational quality” can only apply to the “college”. But what if the term had been “prestige”, would it then apply to the college (for which prestige is a meaningful notion) or the president (for whom prestige certainly is a meaningful notion).</p>

17

<p>Wouldn’t you use her in that case?</p>

18

<p>"2. Many changes occurred while she was president of the college, and they increased its educational quality as well as effectiveness.</p>

<p>(b) college, they both increased the educational quality and effectiveness of the college
(c) college, which both increased its educational quality as well as increased it effectiveness
(d) college; these changes increased its educational quality and effectiveness
(e) college; these changes increased both the educational quality and effectiveness of the college</p>

<p>The answer is E. Can someone please explain why this is the correct answer and why the other answers are incorrect. I am also confused by CB’s explanations. Specifically, I am confused about D. CB states that its is ambiguous, but, in my opinion, it seems that its can only refer to college as that is the only logical antecedent."</p>

<p>You are right in that the “its” can only refer to the college, but nevertheless, the placement of “it” can deter a reader from immediately connecting it with “college” instead of “changes.” Stylistically, a good writer would probably not want to place the “it” so close to the word “colleges.” Thus D is an example of bad writing - for the reason it throws you off a bit. Furthermore, E is a much better choice as it is entirely unambiguous. Does this help?</p>

19

<p>^
I still don’t get it. Changes is plural… there is no possible way that it can refer to it.</p>

20

<p>Come on people!</p>