<p>26.
Most of the hypotheses that Kepler developed to explain physical forces were later rejected as inconsistent to Newtonian theory. </p>
<p>A) most of B)hypotheses that C) as D) inconsistent to E) no error</p>
<p>the answer is D. Why? Is it because you need a phrase like inconsistent to THE Newtonian theory?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some might just claim that “technique of [something]” is the proper idiom and, accordingly, that following “technique” with an infinitive is merely unidiomatic; but I’ll try to give a reason for this.</p>
<p>“to gather” could be one of two things: either it’s the infinitive of “gather,” or it’s an abbreviated form of “in order to gather.” Because “to gather” is not being used as a noun phrase (as in “To gather trash is to be a good citizen”) or as part of a greater verb phrase (as in “I want to gather the trash”), we know that the intended meaning is “in order to gather.” And so we have:</p>
<p>“Aerial photography is thought to be the most efficient technique in order to gather accurate information about the use of land.” </p>
<p>Because “in order to” signals a dependent clause, we should be able to move this subordinating clause in front of the independent clause and leave the meaning unchanged:</p>
<p>“In order to gather accurate information about the use of land, aerial photography is thought to be the most efficient technique.”</p>
<p>First of all, the sentence now doesn’t tell explicitly or directly what the technique is designed to do. Moreover, the sentence now means that aerial photography is *considered<a href=“i.e.,%20the%20passive” title=“thought to be”>/i</a> an efficient technique so that one can gather accurate information. This is illogical. It needs to be “of gathering.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“the” is not necessary. “inconsistent with” is the proper phrase.</p>
<p>Because traffic was (unusually heavy), Jim arrived ten minutes late (for) his job interview even though he had (ran desperately) all the way (from) the bus stop. (No error)</p>
<p>The answer is “ran desperately”. It is supposed to be “run desperately”. Can you explain this one to me?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s merely correct verb conjugation. The auxiliary verb “had” signals the past perfect tense. The past participial of “to run” is “run.”</p>
<p>All forms of “to run” that I can think of:</p>
<p>Simple Present: I run.</p>
<p>Present Progressive: I am running.</p>
<p>Present Perfect: I have run.</p>
<p>Present Perfect Progressive: I have been running.</p>
<p>Simple Past: I ran.</p>
<p>Past Perfect: I had run.</p>
<p>Past Progressive: I was running.</p>
<p>Past Perfect Progressive: I had been running.</p>
<p>Simple Future: I will run.</p>
<p>Future Perfect: I will have run.</p>
<p>Future Progressive: I will be running.</p>
<p>Future Perfect Progressive: I will have been running.</p>
<p>Future Unreal Conditional: If I were to run; I would run</p>
<p>Past Conditional: If I had run</p>
<p>Past Progressive Conditional: If I had been running</p>
<p>There might be some I forgot.</p>
<p>Error ID:
Far away from having been a diehard conservative, Hoover was, some scholars now contend, the leading progressive of his day.<br>
I said no error but it is “away from”. Why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“away from” is redundant; only “from” is needed.</p>
<p>Here’s a question from the October Sat</p>
<p>Our team has worked for several {months on a robot for the science fair that we plan on
entering in the robotics divisions.}
B)months on a robot that we plan to enter in the robotics division of the science fair.
E) months, we are planning to enter a robot in the robotics division of the science fair.
the answer is B but I can’t see why.</p>
<p>{Just by unplugging your} cell phone charger when you are not using it reduces carbon dioxide pollution.
c) Just unplugging your
d) By just unplugging your</p>
<p>the answer is c, but what is wrong with using by?</p>
<p>Choice E contains two independent clauses incorrectly joined with a comma. Choice E would be correct if there were a semicolon instead of a comma. Choice B correctly joins the two clauses with the pronoun “that.”</p>
<p>“By” would make “unplugging your cell phone charger” the object of the introductory prepositional phrase instead of the subject of the sentence. A subject is needed.</p>
<p>(Opposite to) most people I know, Annie, a good photographer (herself), actually (enjoys seeing) the photographs that her friends take (on their) vacations.</p>
<p>Answer is A</p>
<p>Not very particular (in) nesting (sites), house wrens (may nest) in birdhouses, mailboxes, building crevices–even in pockets (of) hanging laundry.</p>
<p>Answer is A</p>
<p>In some books I’ve seen, the use of ambiguous pronouns is counted as an error. So he/she/they/it is wrong if we do not know what or who the subject is? I don’t know where I’ve seen this, but I know I have. It may have been in P.Review or Barron’s…</p>
<p>(Opposite to) most people I know, Annie, a good photographer (herself), actually (enjoys seeing) the photographs that her friends take (on their) vacations.</p>
<p>Answer is A</p>
<p>Not very particular (in) nesting (sites), house wrens (may nest) in birdhouses, mailboxes, building crevices–even in pockets (of) hanging laundry.</p>
<p>Answer is A </p>
<p>Both these questions test idiom knowledge. The first one should be “opposite of…”
although “opposite to…” is acceptable in some dictionaries. Im assuming CB doesn’t think it’s correct. </p>
<p>The second one should be “…particular OF…”</p>
<p>In some books I’ve seen, the use of ambiguous pronouns is counted as an error. So he/she/they/it is wrong if we do not know what or who the subject is? I don’t know where I’ve seen this, but I know I have. It may have been in P.Review or Barron’s… </p>
<p>The use of ambiguous pronouns occurs when the antecedent, the thing the pronoun is referring to, is unclear. </p>
<p>For example: Mary’s daughter said that SHE was unable to attend the party because of transportation. </p>
<p>Here SHE is unclear because it can refer to MARY or the DAUGHTER </p>
<p>I also realize that while the pronoun could refer to multiple objects in the sentence, one can use logic to deduct which antecedent the pronoun is referring to, making the sentence unambiguous.
An example: Mary’s interest in the book was great because she read it voraciously. </p>
<p>Here, the “it” could refer to the interest or the book but still the sentence is unambiguous because LOGICALLY, “it” refers to the book, not “interest”: One can’t read interest voraciously. However, some prep books will ignore this distinction between ambiguous pronouns and will incorrectly say that the example i gave above is ambiguous. Examples of such prep books are Kaplan, barrons, GRUBERS, and even PR.</p>
<p>" {Just by unplugging your} cell phone charger when you are not using it reduces carbon dioxide pollution.
c) Just unplugging your
d) By just unplugging your</p>
<p>the answer is c, but what is wrong with using by? "</p>
<p>C avoids ambiguous redundancy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s nothing ambiguous or redundant about choice (D). Secret Asian Man gave a good explanation:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Opposite%20to”>QUOTE</a> most people I know, Annie, a good photographer (herself), actually (enjoys seeing) the photographs that her friends take (on their) vacations.</p>
<p>Answer is A</p>
<p>Not very particular (in) nesting (sites), house wrens (may nest) in birdhouses, mailboxes, building crevices–even in pockets (of) hanging laundry.</p>
<p>Answer is A</p>
<p>Both these questions test idiom knowledge. The first one should be “opposite of…”
although “opposite to…” is acceptable in some dictionaries. Im assuming CB doesn’t think it’s correct.</p>
<p>The second one should be “…particular OF…”
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>There are almost no idioms involved here.</p>
<p>“Opposite” as an adjective does not apply to people. “Opposite to” and “next to” are commonly used to describe shapes and things in geometry. If two people’s personalities are similar, you would not say that one person is “next to” the other.</p>
<p>That being said, “opposite of” and “opposite to” are both acceptable phrases. Just because one is not allowed in one context does not mean it is an idiom. It is a simple matter of defining.</p>
<p>“the opposite of the word”
“an opposite to a word”
“the heir of the throne”
“an heir to the throne”</p>
<p>“The opposite” is specific. You use “of” to attach something specific to something general. A word has a specific opposite: a specific opposite of the word</p>
<p>“An opposite” is not specific. It can be given an active preposition like “to”</p>
<p>I could say that a gift is “a gift to you.” Once you receive the gift, it will be “the gift of you” because it is in your possession. </p>
<p>The only idiom involved here is “opposite” as a noun (i.e, two people can be “opposites” of each other). This is the only idiomatic expression. You cannot change this idiom to an adjective and say two people are opposite to each other. But if you could, it would be opposite to not opposite of because it is an adjective. Something is of something else if it is a noun (possession).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is, X reduces Y.</p>
<p>There is only a clause. “By” connects a phrase and a clause: “by X, you get Y.”</p>
<p>“The opposite of the word ‘exceed’ does not exist.” (specific)</p>
<p>Oxford Dictionary writes, “There is no established opposite to the word ‘exceed.’” (arbitrary)</p>
<p>Silverturtle vs Crazybandit.</p>
<p>Who’s smarter to get a 2300?</p>
<p>I have one.</p>
<p>Twice as many bird species inhabit Ecuador “as in” North America.</p>
<p>a. as in
b. as inhabit
c. instead of in
d. when compared to
e. than</p>
<p>I find this question very hard. Regardless of choice c and d, choice a, b, and e seem alright to me. The answer given is b, but I don’t why it’s not “as inhabit in”…</p>