<p>Yeah I got "they" as being incorrect for the codfish question.</p>
<p>For the her and her's question, what was the full response?</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, there were two answers with her and her's and I couldn't decide between the two.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If i remember correctly.... if you got as far as that, it was pretty apparent...</p>
<p>"It was a surprised because it had passed so easily.</p>
<p>It was NOT having passed."</p>
<p>So does that mean the right answer was A, the one with the word "which" in it?</p>
<p>@thequestionmark</p>
<p>I got having passed...</p>
<p>@InvisibleMonster</p>
<p>Yup, I got that as the error for that question too.</p>
<p>how is codifish they? isnt it singular so it should be it or something</p>
<p>@xs0itg0esx</p>
<p>Exactly, that's why choosing "they" as the mistake is the correct answer. :P</p>
<p>What was the question and answer for the haghia sofia one?</p>
<p>oh oops, i forgot that was a sentence error one</p>
<p>The Sophia Mosque answer was "because of" since it wasn't the same as the first part or the sentence.</p>
<p>"The one with the law thing...
It was a surprise that state legislature passed the new law, which was passed in other legislature so easily... or having passed it so easily"</p>
<p>The reason I picked "having passed it so easily" is because I don't think "which was passed" works with the comma after law...That was my reasoning. :/</p>
<p>@kevunruss</p>
<p>Saying "having passed" in itself is almost always incorrect as far as I have seen....</p>
<p>With a 10 essay, how many do you think you'll be able to miss to get an 800? I thought it was very, very easy.</p>
<p>Generally, use a comma before "which" but not before "that." Although some writers use "which" to introduce a restrictive clause, the traditional practice is to use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause. When writing a restrictive clause, do not place a comma before "that." When writing a nonrestrictive clause, do place a comma before "which."</p>
<p>Copied and pasted ^^ dw I'm not that articulate :P</p>
<p>question mark-</p>
<p>so what was the answer ? :P</p>
<p>How is "having passed" almost always incorrect?</p>
<p>Having just recently taken the SAT, Ben decided to take a nap.</p>
<p>Doesn't that work?</p>
<p>Okay, but the question was "It was a surprise that state legislature passed the new law, which was passed in other legislature so easily... or having passed it so easily"</p>
<p>Is that last clause supposed to modify the new law or the legislature?</p>
<p>I think it's the law, right? Then it would be "which".</p>
<p>it is which because the dependent clause is modifying law. Thus, a comma is required</p>
<p>I'm still not seeing why the comma is necessary with which...To me which would make sense without the comma.</p>
<p>no, it was more like: "it was a surprise the supreme court did not pass the new law, which was passed into the state legislature so easily".</p>
<p>i say "which" because "having passed it so easily" made it sound like it was the supreme court who had easily passed it in the past.</p>
<p>It was a surprise that the sate court stopped the new law, having passed it so easily in the state legislature</p>
<p>is there anything wrong with that</p>
<p>Having passed it so easily in the state legislature, it was a surprise that the state court stopped the new law.....cant you rewrite it like that...</p>
<p>@JP 1000</p>
<p>Yeah, that's how I looked at it and why I chose having...</p>
<p>@ingette</p>
<p>Isn't the Supreme Court passing it? :/</p>