<p>[Although] he had never played organized sports, whenever Justin, [who was] uncommonly tall, [attends] a basketball game, fans would [ask him for] an autograph.<br>
The answer is [attends] and I understand why it's [attended]
but I chose [who was] because it's in the past tense. Isn't it indicating that Justin was tall and that he is no longer tall? Shouldn't it be [is] instead?</p>
<p>Venezuela [devotes] a higher percentage [of its budget] to education [than do] other large Latin American countries [such as] Mexico and Brazil
There's no error. But I chose [than do] because I thought [than do] introduces a faulty comparison so i thought it should be [than].
Why isn't it than?
Thank you!</p>
<p>The tense use in (1) suggests that Justin is no longer alive. Without further context there is no reason to question that.</p>
<p>For (2) the comparison is to the size of the budget that the various countries contribute to education. It does not make logical sense to compare the countries themselves in regard to this characteristic.</p>
<p>Try: “John scored a much higher score in the physics test than Jane.”</p>
<p>In spoken English this is a common phrasing that is more or less acceptable. In formal written English we need to specifically compare John’s scores to Jane’s scores. There are various ways to do this:</p>
<p>John scored a much higher score in the physics test than Jane scored in the test.
or
John scored a much higher score in the physics test than Jane scored. [Here in the test score is implicit].
or
John scored a much higher score in the physics test than did Jane. [Here too the test score is implicit].</p>
<p>If that’s the case then for this question
Unlike [with many animals], humans do not swim by instinct
shouldn’t it be [many animals do], instead of [many animals] ?
Thank you</p>
<p>In your example we are in fact comparing “many animals” to “humans”. There isn’t a score or a size or etc. that is at the heart of the comparison.</p>
<p>Thank you guys for answering! it’s beginning to make sense</p>
<p>What about this question
[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.
I chose [Of ancient origin] because I thought it was redundant. It’s already mentioned later in the sentence that the game was played in Egypt during the time of pharaohs. Isn’t it unnecessary to restate that it’s of ancient origin?</p>
<p>You’re making the most serious error that someone who is destined for high scores makes. You’re over-thinking the question. There are times, albeit these are infrequent, where the SAT writing error has a blatant redundant adjective or the like. But generally this is an uncommon test scenario. I can’t think of where I’ve seen a phrase, such as the prepositional phrase in your last post, stuck in to trip up test takers because it is redundant. SAT writing is a not a logic test. It’s almost a pure grammar knowledge test.</p>
<p>The phrase is not actually redundant. “Of ancient origin” in that sentence suggests that the game probably existed even long before the time it was played in Egypt or mentioned by Homer or Plato.</p>