Post Writing Questions Here

[crouch88]

<p>

“Number” is the subject of the sentence, and “of awards” is a prepositional phrase

</p>

<p>I would have picked number of awards as the subject instead of number. Can someone elaborate on this please?</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

I would have picked number of awards as the subject instead of number. Can someone elaborate on this please?

</p>

<p>The phrase number of awards is a noun phrase. “Number” is the head noun; “of awards” is the preposition phrase, which modifies/describes the noun.</p>

<p>Take for example this phrase: “the President of the United States’ wife.” Obviously, the entire noun phrase (in bold) serves as one grammatical unit. It is the wife of the President of the United States. Evidently, the apostrophe, which shows possession, is put at the end of the entire phrase and not the word “President.”</p>

<p>So, yes, you can think of number of awards as the subject of the sentence, but the true subject is “number.” Similarly, the true subject of the phrase “the President of the United States’ wife” is the President, otherwise we would think that the United States had a wife.</p>

[purplepotato]

<p>Technically, “number of awards” is the subject, where “number” is the head noun and “of awards” is a post-modifier of “number,” but for the sake of verb conjugation(and therefore most, if not all, of the SAT writing questions), “number” is all that needs to be considered.</p>

<p>Apparently I lost again. :(</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

Technically, “number of awards” is the subject, where “number” is the head noun and “of awards” is a post-modifier of “number,” but for the sake of verb conjugation(and therefore most, if not all, of the SAT writing questions), “number” is all that needs to be considered.</p>

<p>Apparently I lost again

</p>

<p>That seems oddly similar to what I said.</p>

[crouch88]

<p>Ah niiice…thanks to both of you!</p>

[shannonz]

<p>

C is not wrong because the “it” is ambiguous; “lasted the duration of a week” is unnecessarily complicated phrasing, and “to make” implies that the heat lasted a week for the purpose of seeming like sheer torture, not that it seemed like sheer torture because the heat lasted a week. D is much more clear and concise, and manages to retain the intended meaning.
Even if “it” is ambiguous, that shouldn’t make a difference, because it’s used in both answer choices and D is much more concise and less awkwardly-phrased than C.

thanks for clearing that up, i get it now :)</p>

<p>

The “it” in the phrase “made it seem sheer torture” is not ambiguous because it isn’t meant to refer to anything previously said. In fact, it refers to “torture.” A more familiar phrase than “made it seem X” would be “X seems like Y,” which translates into “X appears to look like Y.” “The heat’s duration made it seem sheer torture” means that the heat’s duration made torture appear to exist. However, you wouldn’t say “the heat’s duration made torture seem,” even though that translates into “the heat’s duration made torture appear to exist.” You say “the heat’s duration made it seem torture.”

</p>

<p>Whoa. Okay. i think i kind of get it now. “It” also has no clear subject in “It is likely that we lose today’s football match.” Right?</p>

<p>

Yes, “it” is an expletive pronoun in those cases, which means that it has no semantic implication. It some contexts, though, we can think of the expletive “it” as a cataphoric pronoun.

So “it” can be

1. Cataphoric pronoun
2. Anaphoric pronoun
3. have no clear subject
   Is this correct?</p>

<p>

The phrase number of awards is a noun phrase. “Number” is the head noun; “of awards” is the preposition phrase, which modifies/describes the noun.</p>

<p>Take for example this phrase: “the President of the United States’ wife.” Obviously, the entire noun phrase (in bold) serves as one grammatical unit. It is the wife of the President of the United States. Evidently, the apostrophe, which shows possession, is put at the end of the entire phrase and not the word “President.”</p>

<p>So, yes, you can think of number of awards as the subject of the sentence, but the true subject is “number.” Similarly, the true subject of the phrase “the President of the United States’ wife” is the President, otherwise we would think that the United States had a wife.

</p>

<p>So the “United States” and “wife” modify “President” -the key noun in that phrase, so president is the noun, i.e. Singular?
Another question. In “The footballers wives”, is footballers the head noun? If this is the case, then if i had a verb i had to have it plural as well? Eg. “The footballers wives often go out togther and splurge on trips to exotic locations.” -right??? :/</p>

[purplepotato]

<p>

Another question. In “The footballers wives”, is footballers the head noun? If this is the case, then if i had a verb i had to have it plural as well? Eg. “The footballers wives often go out togther and splurge on trips to exotic locations.” -right???

</p>

<p>In that example, “footballers” should be "footballers’ " because it’s being used possessively. Note that in this case the noun phrase can also be written as “the wives of the footballers”, which should make it obvious from the previous examples that “wives” is the head noun and “of the footballers” is a prepositional phrase modifying “wives”. The verb should be plural, as you said, but your reasoning was not quite right; it’s plural because “wives” is plural, not because “footballers” is plural.</p>

[shannonz]

<p>ah yes, pesky little apostrophe! Thanks for correcting me on that
What if i said “Footballers of England’s wives”? would the subject still be wives, or would it be footballers?</p>

<p>Sorry, for all the questions! I’ve never actually been taught grammar in school. Rather, the teachers base it on what “sounds right”.</p>

[purplepotato]

<p>The subject is “footballers”; “of England’s wives” describes the footballers.</p>

[shannonz]

<p>

The subject is still “footballers”; “of England’s wives” describes the footballers.

didn’t you say that prior to that i.e. “Footballers’ wives”, wives was the head noun?
So for the second example, “footballers of England’s wives”, the verb would have to be plural because the head noun, Footballers is plural. Right?</p>

<p>Based on what crazybandit says, in noun phrase, “the number of awards”, “of awards” modifies the head noun “number”. So by the same token, in “Footballers’ wives”, isn’t "footballers’ " the head noun and “wives” the modifier?</p>

[purplepotato]

<p>Yes, that’s what I was trying to say :(. I’m not sure why I put the “still” there.</p>

<p>Yes only to the first paragraph though; in “the number of awards”, “of awards” is a prepositional phrase, which will not be the subject. “Footballers’ wives” can be rephrased as “wives of footballers”, which then has the same structure as “the number of awards”; “wives” is the head noun, and “of footballers” is a prepositional phrase describing “wives”.</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>No one learns grammar in school. This is common sense. You are talking about the wives, so that is the subject. The SAT doesn’t primarily test what you learn but rather what you can deduce–through logic, reasoning, critical thinking, etc.–from basic information and knowledge.</p>

[shannonz]

<p>

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say . I’m not sure why I put the “still” there.</p>

<p>Yes only to the first paragraph though; in “the number of awards”, “of awards” is a prepositional phrase, which will not be the subject. “Footballers’ wives” can be rephrased as “wives of footballers”, which then has the same structure as “the number of awards”; “wives” is the head noun, and “of footballers” is a prepositional phrase describing “wives”.

</p>

<p>Thanks for the really prompt reply!
Ah, no worries, don’t be sad! :)</p>

<p>I think i kinda get you; the whole thing about prepositional phrases and such, but i’ve got to go for volunteering right now, so i’ll come back and post later if i have any queries later!</p>

<p>Thanks again!!!</p>

<p>

No one learns grammar in school. This is common sense. You are talking about the wives, so that is the subject. The SAT doesn’t primarily test what you learn but rather what you can deduce–through logic, reasoning, critical thinking, etc.–from basic information and knowledge.

Thanks. I don’t have common sense then. :(</p>

[thrill3rnit3]

<p>(Cited) in the appendix (is) a number of documented sources and suggested reading resources for those (who) wish to continue (their) investigation into the topic. (No error).</p>

<p>The answer they had is:</p>

<p>(is) is the credited answer. The sentence contains the plural, compound subject “list of documented sources and suggested reading”. The sentence requires the plural verb form “are” rather than its current singular form “is.”</p>

<p>========================================</p>

<p>My question is shouldn’t the subject be “a number”, therefore making it singular? Because I can totally cross out the prepositional phrase"of documented sources…", leaving the sentence as “Cited in the appendix (IS) a number.”</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>You have to use reasoning to come to your conclusion. You can’t just cross out a prepositional phrase once you see it.</p>

<p>Look at these two examples:
(1) A number of people were hurt in the accident.
(2) The number of homeless children in the city has risen alarmingly.</p>

<p>(1) refers to the people; the people were hurt.
(2) refers to a number; the number of people has gone up.</p>

<p><a href=“Cited”>quote</a> in the appendix (is) a number of documented sources and suggested reading resources for those (who) wish to continue (their) investigation into the topic. (No error).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Similarly, in this sentence, the sources themselves were cited, not the number. The number only tells us that there were numerous (as opposed to one).</p>

[thrill3rnit3]

<p>I see my mistake, one of the refers to “a number” of something, meaning “some”, which makes it plural. The other refers to “the number”, which is a singular figure.</p>

<p>Thanks for clarifying.</p>

[wangft]

<p>[Of ancient Origin], the game of checkers [was played] in Egypt [during the time] of pharaohs and [is mentioned] in the writings of Homer and Plato. [No error]</p>

<p>The correct answer is no error…But i couldn’t understand why [Is mentioned] is correct because the mentioning of the game occurs in the past? So by right should be was?</p>

[crazybandit]

<p>

But i couldn’t understand why [Is mentioned] is correct because the mentioning of the game occurs in the past

</p>

<p>The sentence deals with literature. One talks about literature (a piece of literature: its actions, characters, themes, etc.) in the present tense. For example, one would say, “the main character loses his sanity halfway through the novel.” This action did not occur at any specific time in real life, so it takes the present tense as it is the present topic of discussion. In formal writing, historical events, whether they deal with literature or not, on the other hand, take the past tense: “In 1965, the book was written”; “The war ended in 1918.”</p>

<p>Literature is discussed in the present tense mainly because of how you perceive it. You may say “the late film director depicts a beautiful scene in his 1939 film” simply because the opinion or perception exists in the present: “He composed poetry centuries ago, but we today appreciate it in a different way.”</p>

[wangft]

<p>I see. Thanks. Can you explain these problems to me also?</p>

<p>A possible first step [in developing] a nonsexist vocabulary [with which] to analyze the works [of] the nineteenth-century writer Elizabeth Gaskell would be [to stop] referring to her as “Mrs. Gaskell.” [No error] </p>

<p>The correct answer is no error. But I chose B. I thought that “with which” just sounds weird here, but I dunno the grammatical underpinning of this “with which”, can you explain this to me?</p>

<p>Another qn:</p>

<p>I have gone [to] [only one] football game [after] I [graduated] from high school. [No Error].</p>

<p>I thought this sentence is all correct, but the answer claims that “after” is wrong and should be replaced by “since”. While I admit “since” sounds better, but what’s wrong with “after”?</p>

<p>The construction of a waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans [was first proposed] in 1524, [but no until] the Panama Canal opened in 1914 did [such a project] become [a reality]. [No Error].</p>

<p>No error for this sentence, but I don’t see why “was proposed” is correct here. I mean, the proposal occurred before the opening of Panama Canal, which was used in past tense. Thus “was proposed” should be “had been proposed”. Somemore, there was an "until’ in the sentence to signal the continuity? Sory I’m confused. </p>

<p>Million thanks!</p>

[lordofcenturies]

<p>it was obvious that all of the candidates had planned (carefully) for the televised debate, (for each) (answer to) the opening question showed evidence (of having been) rehearsed. no error
the answer is no error but i donot get it ,first i thought that the answer might be (D) ‘having been’ be changed to parallel had planned
can anyone explain</p>