<p>ok i came accross this question on the Princeton Review Online Course. The capitalized part was underlined:</p>
<p>"My mule, seemingly as reluctant to be on the trip AS WAS ME, stepped quite close to the edge"</p>
<p>A. No change
B. as I was reluctant
C. as I,
D. as me,</p>
<p>i chose d. the correct answer was H. I thought that as was a preposition? i guess it could be a conjuction but iono. Does anyone have tricks to recognize this?</p>
<p>what was the correct answer?</p>
<p>Um.. H isn't an answer. But I'm gonna go ahead and say it's "as I" because it's not accusative.</p>
<p>C is the correct answer. As explained in my Harbrace's, a pronoun following "as" (same is true with "than") takes the subjective or objective case (AKA nominative or accusative) according to whether the pronoun is subject or object of an implied verb.</p>
<p>In the sentence in question, there is an implied "was" following the pronoun. </p>
<p>In other words, if there is a verb you can add and still have the sentence make sense, use the subjective pronoun.</p>
<p>can you explain some more questions from PR:</p>
<p>“Also, when you have finished a project, you WOULD HAVE and end product that will last a lifetime”</p>
<p>A. No change
B. have
C. will be having
D. will have had</p>
<p>-I put A, the book puts B</p>
<p>“Visible from parts of the ISLAND IS Fort Mackinac bridge”</p>
<p>A. No change
B. Island are
C. Island is:
D. Island, is</p>
<p>-I put A, the book puts B. I think this a typo</p>
<p>“since cates do not use expression with other cats, it is logical to conclude that they DEVELOP this “language” expressly for communicating with their human owners”.</p>
<p>A. No change
B. developed
C. have been developing
D. develops</p>
<p>-the passage was in present tense so I put A. the book puts B</p>
<p>“the fact that few buildings were over ten stories UNDERCUTS ANY DEMAND for passenger elevators, and concerens about safety…”</p>
<p>A. no change
B. undercuts any demanders
C. undercut any demand
D. and undercut the demand</p>
<p>-I put A cuz of “the fact”. The book puts C. is this PR’s typo?</p>
<p>“I remember the first time my paretns took me TO GO SEE the movies”</p>
<p>F. no change
G. there to enjoy
H. to see
J. to go to</p>
<ul>
<li>I put J, the book puts H. I havent seen this on the real ACT before. What is it testing?</li>
</ul>
<p>“It wasn’t undil 1886 that the title of chess champion of the world WAS CREATED BY the Austrian chess champion and winner of the tournament that year: Wilhelm Steinitz.”
A. no change
B. has been made
C. was invented with
D. would have been created for</p>
<p>-I put D. the book put A. is this a typo cuz to me it doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>“By providing privacy and respectful reserve, the hotel staff faithfully DOES CULTIVATES the same atmosphere of understated encouragement of artistic pursuit for its current tenants that helped to attract the early influx of artistic and literary giants.”</p>
<p>A. no change
B. cultivated
C. has cultivated
D. cultivates</p>
<p>-I put C, the book has D. I’m pretty bad with tenses</p>
<p>Thanks to whoever help explain this</p>
<p>blah, here's what I have:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>"would" is unnecessary to understand the sentence, but that's the only way I can explain it. As a general rule for the ACT, it's always better to go with the SHORTEST answer. "Would have" and "have" = "have" is the better choice.</p></li>
<li><p>Uh... no clue.</p></li>
<li><p>The cats have already developed their language, so it needs to be in past tense. I can understand why you would put develop, but if you read both choices through, it's more logical to go with the past (or ask yourself: are cats still developing this expresison?)</p></li>
<li><p>C is correct because the whole sentence can be interpreted as past tense, not present, if you read it carefully.</p></li>
<li><p>H is correct because it's the SHORTEST answer. Just like I said in 1, the question is testing repetitious phraseology. They want the most succinct version.</p></li>
<li><p>This is a poor sentence in the first place. The only way I would come up with the correct answer is to look at all of the sentences to see which preposition is correct. It's definitely not "with" or "for" and since B doesn't make sense, A is the only one left.</p></li>
<li><p>You know the answer is going to be in present continious because of the phrase "By providing privacy and respectful reserve," I'm not sure how to explain that one better..</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hope some of that helped.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>"Would have" is incorrect because no meaning of the word "would" makes it appropriate. When used in a tense sequence, "would have" implies a condition that was not met, as in, "If A, then B would have followed (where it is clear that A didn't happen)." Personally, I would put down "will have," but that isn't given as an alternative. </p></li>
<li><p>PR is wrong. One wouldn't say that a bridge "are." It looks like they were trying to see if people know that where you have something like "parts of the island" as a subject, the verb agrees with "parts," not "island." But then they wrote a sentence with inverted order, where the subject is "bridge."</p></li>
<li><p>See message #6.</p></li>
<li><p>I would express this stronger than saint_paul. The sentence not only can be interpreted as past tense, it IS past tense, using "were."</p></li>
<li><p>"To go see" is not a single verb. It is used colloquially with an implied "and" -- to go and to see. But often, the "going" part is redundant or makes no sense. Parents taking someone to go someplace, your preferred alternative, is redundant. The best alternative they list is to take to see the movies, but I think it would be even better to say to take to the movies, period.</p></li>
<li><p>This is weird. Did Steinitz create the title himself or did he just win the first title? I would go with D but "would" makes no sense -- it implies the title would have been created but something happened and it wasn't. All in all a poor sentence. Don't worry about it -- just go to your dictionary and look at the times you can use the word "would." Since B & C aren't correct, that leaves A -- meaning he created the title and then won it. I'll have to ask my chess fiend husband about this one ...</p></li>
<li><p>The assumption is that the hotel staff continues to be good; the sentence refers to the current tenants. Unless they are somehow stuck there, those tenants are there because the atomosphere is still being cultivated.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>All in all, I think you would do well to look at actual past ACT tests and not what PR comes up with!</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Depends on the context. If "when you have" means "when this happens at some time in the future", you would say "you will have an end product"; if it means more like "whenever this happens or has happened", you would say "you have an end product". I don't like it, anyway.</p></li>
<li><p>You're right.</p></li>
<li><p>Again, depends on the context. Maybe they develop it in response to their individual owners, in which case A is correct. But logically I think it means that they, as a species, developed it once, in the past.
Forget about what tense the passage is in. What word makes sense?</p></li>
<li><p>You're distinguishing between singular and plural; but in this case, "undercut" isn't plural, it's past tense. "The fact undercut the demand (in the past)", not "the fact undercuts the demand (today)". It makes more sense in this sentence that the demand is past, not present.
Diane, can you explain what you say about the sentence being past tense because of the word "were"? I think "the fact that few buildings were over ten stories" is the subject of the sentence, and the main verb is "undercut", which is the part in dispute, so wouldn't the tense of the sentence depend on the answer chosen, not the other way around? I mean, it would be perfectly correct to say "the fact that few buildings were over ten stories bores me".</p></li>
<li><p>If you're already being taken to the movies, you don't still need to go there. The extra words are just clutter.</p></li>
<li><p>The sentence is saying that the champion created the title. An odd fact, perhaps, but the sentence is totally straightforward and correct.
Diane, I would think that he won a chess tournament and THEN called himself "chess champion of the world".</p></li>
<li><p>You don't need to know what a tense is to get these. Just read the sentences and understand what they're saying. Technically, any option but A would create a correct sentence, but the last part of this sentence implies that the task is ongoing ("cultivates"), not something that has already been completed ("has cultivated").</p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li> I agree that the sentence is not a good one to test. Actually, if it is intended to reflect repeated or habitual action, "would have" could be correct, too! I can also imagine the following exchange -- "I followed the directions and I didn't get a useful product," followed by: "Once you have finished the steps specified, you would have such a product" ... meaning you must be mistaken about following the directions.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is an example of the benefit of using actual past tests; the questions are more likely to have been vetted more carefully.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I guess I need to explain myself a bit further. "The fact that few buildings were over ten stories" COULD be the subject of a sentence in a tense other than past. However, the rest of the sentence, dealing with how this affected the demand for elevators, would only seem to make sense if you were dealing with the same time frame, i.e., tense. The height of buildings in the past won't affect the demand for elevators now or in the future, only the demand for elevators in the past.</p></li>
<li><p>Yes, winning a tournament and then calling oneself "champion of the world" sounds possible. Great chess players seem to have little problem with self-esteem. Reminds me of the one who was playing, and losing, to someone rated much lower than himself. He declared angrily, "Why must I lose to this idiot?" and stormed off.</p></li>
</ol>