<p>Lordofcenturies</p>
<p>The reason it is no error is because, while the sentence itself sounds a bit awkward, it is NOT grammatically awkward. The “Of having been” is correct because the “having been” correctly corresponds to the tense of the sentence.</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>** is grammatically correct. The use of with which is appropriate here. Think of it like this: “With my new vocabulary, I can better understand complicated books.” With makes sense here. In the sentence above, the with corresponds to the “nonsexist vocabulary.” With which doesn’t sound weird, but it does sound forced if you aren’t used to hearing it.</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>“After” is definitely wrong. The sentence begins with “I have gone” which forces you to unify the tense (not the perfect word but I can’t describe what i’m trying to say) of the sentence. You wouldn’t say, “I’ve been going to camp ‘after’ I was five”. You would say, “I’ve been going to camp ‘since’ I was five.”</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.”</p>
<p>The reason it is no error (I am assuming that you meant to type ‘but not until’ instead of ‘but no until’) lies in the way the sentence is constructed. Because the sentence begins with the construction of a watery in 1524, and ends with the Panama Canal in 1914, there needs to be a change in tense. “Was proposed” correctly separates the two time periods.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(1) “vocabulary with which to analyze the works…”</p>
<p>The “which” represents the antecedent, or the word you placed previous to its preposition (“vocabulary”). The preposition “with” implies that the following verb, to analyze, is connected objectively to the antecedent (“vocabulary”). So, the phrase above implies that one analyzes the works with the vocabulary. Likewise, you might refer to something as “a tool with which to do the job effectively.”</p>
<p>(2) “the horse on which I rode”
I rode on the horse, which was brown. The horse on which I rode was brown.</p>
<p>(3) “the spoon with which I am stirring this drink”
I stirred with the spoon, which was metal. The spoon with which I stirred the drink was metal.</p>
<p>(4) “the toy with which the boy had been familiar all his childhood”
The boy was familiar with the toy, which was plastic. The toy with which the boy was familiar was plastic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“I have gone” is in the present perfect tense. This means the event occurred in the PAST, but is still relevant today. For example, when you say, “I have prepared for the exam,” you mean that you prepared in the past, but you are STILL prepared in the PRESENT. The present perfect tense focuses on the extended time period since the event, as opposed to the event.</p>
<p>“I went” is in the simple past tense. This refers to an event that occurred in the past. This event may have occurred after another event.</p>
<p>“After” focuses on a particular position; “since” focuses on a time period.</p>
<p>You might say, “I did not go after 8:00,” but that is not as accurate as “I have not gone since 8:00.” However, if you are focusing on one event or time frame, you might say, “I did not go to the party.” If you are focusing on some sort of general time frame, you might say, “I have not gone to a party since 2005.”</p>
<p>“I did not go” is in the simple past. “I have not gone” is in the present perfect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean here. Both “was proposed” and “had been proposed” are in the past tense. “Until” in this case means “before.” The construction was not proposed before the Panama Canal opened. Also, the year was mentioned, meaning the verb takes the simple past tense because a year is specific to one event. Yes, a year is a long period of time, but it is still, in an abstract sense, one instant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would it be parallel? The answer has been rehearsed. The answer showed evidence of having been rehearsed. I win the race. I am proud of winning the race.</p>
<p>Thanks for the answer. How about these questions.</p>
<p>[Modern bluegrass songs, telling of love and despair and celebrating mountain beauty], reflect the genre’s rural origins. </p>
<p>A) The same
B) Modern bluegrass songs through their telling of love and despair and celebrating mountain beauty,
C)Because modern bluegrass songs tell of love and despair and also celebrating mountain beauty, they
D) With modern bluegrass songs that tell of love and despair and celebrate mountain beauty, they
E) Telling of love and despair, modern bluegrass songs celebrating mountain beauty, and they also</p>
<p>The correct answer is A, and I understand my mistake of choosing C. But I cannot understand why A is correct, particularly the “telling of love and despair and celebrating mountain beauty” part…Just don’t get it. </p>
<p>Benin was the first sub-Saharan African country to experience a “civilian coup”: [they were a regime that was dominated by the armed forces and obliged by] citizens to implement democratic reforms.</p>
<p>A) the same.
B) they had been a regime that was dominated by the armed forces, when they were obliged to
C) it had a regime, armed forces dominating, but then were obliged to
D) armed forces dominated them until this regime were obliged by
E) a regime, dominated by the armed forces, was obliged by</p>
<p>Correct answer is C, which I have completely no idea. Basically, I don’t know what should be followed after a colon. Must it be something that further explains the previous part of the sentence?</p>
<p>Another one. </p>
<p>No two of the specimens [was sufficiently alike to warrant them being called] memebers of a single species. </p>
<p>A)the same
E) were sufficiently alike to warrant calling them.</p>
<p>I couldn’t understand why E is correct. I chose A. I mean, there is a “No” in the sentence. Shouldn’t something after “No” always be considered as singular?</p>
<p>Qns for you.</p>
<p>Five years in [the writing], her new book is [both a response] to her critics’ mistrust [with] her earlier findings and [an elaboration] of her original thesis. [No Error]</p>
<p>Correct answer is C. While I admit “mistrust with” sounds weird, what should be the proper idiom to go?</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. [No Error]</p>
<p>Why A is wrong? What should be the proper sentence?</p>
<p>Five years in [the writing], her new book is [both a response] to her critics’ mistrust [with] her earlier findings and [an elaboration] of her original thesis. [No Error]</p>
<p>mistrust with -> mistrust of</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. [No Error]</p>
<p>opposite to -> unlike</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Telling” can be both a gerund or a present participle. A gerund acts as a noun, and refers to the action itself (“telling meaningful stories is a good way to arouse memories”; “sleeping is a good time-consuming activity”). A present participle looks just like a gerund, but acts as a verb or an adjective (“the sleeping man woke up on the wrong side of the street”). It modifies, or describes, a noun just like an adjective does. Notice that the sentence “His music, [which is] original and rebellious in lyrical nature, was highly praised” is grammatical. “Original and rebellious” are ADJECTIVES that are treated as a parenthetical: “His music (which is original and rebellious) was highly praised.”</p>
<p>“Telling of,” which is a present participle, acts as an adjective and thus can be used in the same way:
“Modern bluegrass songs, telling of love and despair and celebrating mountain beauty, reflect the genre’s rural origins”;
“Modern bluegrass songs (which are telling of love and despair and celebrating mountain beauty) reflect the genre’s rural origins.”</p>
<p>These songs celebrate mountain beauty. These songs are celebrating mountain beauty.
These songs tell of love and despair. These songs are telling of love and despair.</p>
<p>These songs, telling of love and despair, reflect the genre’s origins.
These songs, celebrating mountain beauty, reflect the genre’s origins.
These songs, telling of love and despair and celebrating mountain beauty, reflect the genre’s origins.</p>
<p>When the present participle is used in this modifying way, it is not in the present tense. You might say, “the sleeping man woke up at 8:00,” but you wouldn’t be implying that the man is still sleeping in the present when you say that. It just describes the man in whatever tense the sentence is in. If the present participle is used in this way: “the man is sleeping,” then it is in the present tense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, whatever follows the colon explains the previous part of the sentence. The answer isn’t C; perhaps you read wrong, or perhaps there was a mistake in the answer key. The answer is E. Everything that follows the colon is one sentence:</p>
<p>“Benin was the first sub-Saharan African country to experience a “civilian coup”: a regime, dominated by the armed forces, was obliged by citizens to implement democratic reforms.”</p>
<p>“dominated by the armed forces” acts similarly to the participial phrase in the previous problem. It describes the noun “regime” and acts as an adjective. </p>
<p>(C) is completely wrong and makes no sense. You should know that (A) (the original sentence), (B), and (D) are wrong automatically because they use plural pronouns “they” and “them,” which do not properly refer to the singular antecedent “Benin.”</p>
<p>Here are some examples of colon use (taken from Wikipedia):
“Luruns could not speak: he was drunk.”
“There was only one possible explanation: the train had never arrived.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not true. “No” is an adjective, which describes the lack of “two of the specimens.” An adjective does not affect whether the verb is plural or singular; only the noun (“specimens”) does. You say, “two of the specimens were…” To negate it, you simply say, “no two of the specimens were…” It doesn’t change because you are only adding an adjective.</p>
<p>Now, when you use the pronoun “none,” you generally use a singular verb. However, if you connect a prepositional phrase, such as, “none of the survivors,” you might say, “none of the survivors were found.” This is similar to saying, “a number of students were…”, because even though the head noun is singular, it still refers to a group of people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is mistrust? When you say, “I hate mistrust,” what are you referring to? You are referring to a particular instance or ACT of mistrusting. So, it should be “mistrust of,” not “mistrust with.” Similarly, if you were to describe to the ACT of eating, you might say, “the eating of the sandwich satisfied me.” If you were to describe the ACT of mistrusting, you might say, “the mistrust of the evidence came from the fact that they did not come from a reputable source.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Opposite to” should be “unlike.” “Opposite” describes location (“The red house is opposite the green house”) or relation (“There is no established opposite to the word ‘exceed.’”) It does not describe people. The only idiom related to “opposite” that describes people is “opposites” as a noun, as in: “They are opposites of each other.” This is strictly a noun and cannot be changed to an adjective as in “opposite to.”</p>
<p>Yes, whatever follows the colon explains the previous part of the sentence. The answer isn’t C; perhaps you read wrong, or perhaps there was a mistake in the answer key. The answer is E. Everything that follows the colon is one sentence:</p>
<p>“Benin was the first sub-Saharan African country to experience a “civilian coup”: a regime, dominated by the armed forces, was obliged by citizens to implement democratic reforms.”</p>
<p>“dominated by the armed forces” acts similarly to the participial phrase in the previous problem. It describes the noun “regime” and acts as an adjective.</p>
<p>(C) is completely wrong and makes no sense. You should know that (A) (the original sentence), (B), and (D) are wrong automatically because they use plural pronouns “they” and “them,” which do not properly refer to the singular antecedent “Benin.”</p>
<p>Answer E is correct. But I still have problem understanding. Firstly, is regime a singular verb? And in this case, does it describe the country Benin? </p>
<p>Now, when you use the pronoun “none,” you generally use a singular verb. However, if you connect a prepositional phrase, such as, “none of the survivors,” you might say, “none of the survivors were found.” This is similar to saying, “a number of students were…”, because even though the head noun is singular, it still refers to a group of people.</p>
<p>While I understand the differences between using the adjective No and using the pronoun None, shouldn’t singular form be used if you were to describe " a number of students" or “none of the survivors were found”. I’m extremely confused over this. Please explain.</p>
<p>Opinion polls show the public [has about as dim a view of pharmaceutical campanies as tobacco companies]</p>
<p>A. The same
B. have about as dim a view of pharmaceutical companies as tobacco companies
C. has about as dim a view of pharmeceutical companies as it does of tobacco companies.
D. has almost so dim a view of pharmaceutical companies as of tobacco companies.
E. has approximately as dim a view of pharmaceutical companies as tobacco companies.</p>
<p>I understand that C is correct because of parallel structure, but can you tell me why “public” in this case is singular and no plural?</p>
<p>During the 1980’s, the income gap between the richest and the poorest Americans widened (significantly, while continuing to expand) in the 1990’s.
B)significantly, and it continued to expand
C)significantly with continuing expansion</p>
<p>The correct answer is B but I would like to know why C is wrong.</p>
<p>The practice of renaming a street Martin Luther King Boulevard has been adopted (through many cities in honoring) the civil rights leader.
D) by many cities to honor
E) by many cities in honoring</p>
<p>The correct answer is D but I thought it should be E to make it parallel.</p>
<p>The dolls in the collection, (all) (more than) two hundred years old, had (carefully) carved for children (long since) gone. (No Error)
The correct answer is " No error" but what does “long since” mean.</p>
<p>The new system, which (uses) remote cameras (in the catching of) (speeding motorists) (may undermine) the police departments authority.
The answer is “in the catching of”, what is wrong with it or what should it be?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“regime” is a singular noun…a regime is a government. the independent clause that follows the colon says that a regime was influenced by citizens to become more democratic. This is called a “civilian coup,” which is basically a takeover by the civilians (the people, the citizens). So yes, the regime refers to Benin. The sentence is related in that sense. It is basically clarifying what is meant by the statement that Benin experienced a “civilian coup.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally, you’d use a singular verb since the head noun is “number” or “none,” but if you think about it logically, what you are really talking about is the students and the survivors. If there are 5 students, you might say that a number of them (let’s say 3 or 4) are good students. You aren’t actually referring to the NUMBER. You are referring to numerous students. Now if you were actually referring to the number, you would use a singular verb: “The number of students has increased.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Public” is a collective noun, which takes a singular verb. Other collective nouns include “team,” “group,” “government,” etc., all of which take singular verbs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is wordy and isn’t as graceful as (B). It is lousy. You should never use the present participle and a preposition (“with continuing”) when you can simply use a simple verb (“continued”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would it have to be parallel…? Not everything has to be parallel. Only structures that have to be parallel are the ones that are modified by the SAME thing. For example, in the sentence “Mary likes running, swimming, and skiing,” everything has to end with ing because they are all modified by “likes.” Mary likes all those things, so they all have to be parallel. In the other sentence, however, “renaming” and “honoring” do not share a common structure…The answer is (D) because “adopted…to honor” shows purpose. The purpose of the adoption is to honor the civil rights leader. It is similar to the sentence “I ate to satisfy my hunger” – "The practice of renaming a street Martin Luther King Boulevard has been adopted by many cities to honor the civil rights leader.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means long ago. The children were long ago gone, or gone long ago. It is an adjective, similar to the one in the phrases “the apple I ate long ago,” “the apple eaten long ago,” and “the apple long ago eaten.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similar to the question about Martin Luther King, it should be “to catch,” because it shows purpose. The purpose of the cameras is TO CATCH speeding motorists.</p>
<p>Hey guys, here are some questions that I have trouble with </p>
<p>1). [Writing about] people [whose circumstances] [were deplorable], Dickens used the novel [to protest] social conditions in Victorian England. No error.</p>
<p>Well the answer to this question is No error. However, shouldn’t “to protest” be the error. This is because “to protest” is in infinitive form however “writing” is a gerund. Thus, to make it, parallel, shouldn’t “to protest” be changed to a gerund?</p>
<p>2). The practice of renaming a street Martin Luther King Boulevard has been adopted [through many cities in honoring] the civil rights leader.</p>
<p>Plausible answer choices</p>
<pre><code> D). by many cities to honor
E). by many cities in honoring
</code></pre>
<p>Again, the grammatical error is analogous to the problem in question #1. I chose E, because “renaming” is a gerund and so to maintain parallelism, I chose E rather than D. However, the answer is D. Shouldn’t the infinitive “to honor” be incongruous with “renaming.”</p>
<p>3). The apparently chaotic images in certain types of contemporary paintings strike many viewers as both confusing [but] delightfully original.</p>
<pre><code>D). and as
E). and
</code></pre>
<p>I chose D to maintain the parallel as…as parallel structure. However, the answer is E. Why? Is it more idiomatic or what? Doesn’t parallelism have to be maintained?</p>
<p>4). Syndication offered the advantages of shared news, features, and [printing, each paper still maintaining] contact with its local community through a small staff employed there.</p>
<pre><code>A). printing, and their papers still maintained.
B). printing; instead, each paper still maintained
C). printing, while allowing each paper to maintain
</code></pre>
<p>I chose A out of pure intuition. However, the answer is C. Why would C be right and A and B be wrong?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for the help guys.</p>
<p>In the wild, pygmy chimpanzees are found only in an inaccessible region south of the Zaire River, (since such is the case, very few are in captivity.)
B)and very few are in captivity because of that.
C)and so no more than a few are in captivity.</p>
<p>The correct answer is C, but I don’t understand what is wrong with choice B.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No… “Writing” is the start of a participial phrase that modifies the subject “Dickens” in this case. The semantic implication is that two actions occur at the same time, or are related in a similar sense. For example, when you say, “Walking home late at night, Dan was scared his parents were worried about him,” you are implying that Dan was scared WHILE he was walking home late at night. Similarly, when you say “Writing about people whose circumstances were deplorable, Dickens used the novel to protest social conditions,” you are implying that the writing and the using the novel to protest took place at the same time, or more accurately, are virtually the same. In writing the novel, he also used the novel to protest passively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Parallel structure has nothing to do with these problems. Is your first language English? The sentence “I’m going to eat to satisfy my hunger” is grammatical, correct? It is the same thing. You wouldn’t say “I’m going to eat to satisfying my hunger.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Parallelism occurs after the word “both.” The “as” is placed before “both,” so you don’t have to repeat it. You would either say, “as both confusing and original,” or “both as confusing and as original.” (Although the latter is not as favorable as the former, it is correct in illustration.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similarly to the first problem you posted, “each paper still maintaining” would be the participial phrase. It must modify the subject of the independent clause in this case, which is “syndication.” (C) is simple: Syndication offered advantages A, B, and C, while allowing D. It uses a participle phrase (“allowing…”), so in the most literal sense the actions are occurring at the same time. Syndication offers something while allowing something else. </p>
<p>(A) would be a plausible sentence if the participle phrase’s noun had a proper antecedent (thing to refer back to). “Each paper” doesn’t refer to anything. A participial clause must rely on an independent clause. You might say, “I like the kids, Ben not liking me.” “Ben” refers to one of the kids.</p>
<p>Opinions on Charles Ives as a composer [have always been split], with some listeners regarding him, as, [at best], an entertaining eccentric, [while] others lauding him as the [most influential] composer of his age. [No Error.]</p>
<p>I thought the sentence is completely correct but Option C “while” is wrong. I don’t understand why. I mean, isn’t “while” correct to establish the contrast between the 2 diverging opinions?</p>
<p>He was the author [whom] I [believed] was [most likely] to receive the [coveted] award.
[No Error]</p>
<p>I thought there is no error in this sentence as the subject of this sentence is “he”. Hence “whom” is correctly used here to introduce him as an object believed by me. But I dunno why it is wrong. </p>
<p>Please give scholarship [to whoever] in the graduating class [has done] the most [to promote goodwill] in the community. [No Error]</p>
<p>I don’t understand how whoever is used in a sentence. Also, why link to whoever…has done? </p>
<p>Million thanks</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only time I’ve heard ‘while’ being used to contrast two things is when while is at the front of the first clause; something like "while some listeners regard him, as, at best, an entertaining eccentric, others laud him as the…</p>
<p>In that particular sentence, ‘and’ would’ve been a better transition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha you just explained yourself into wrong-dom. If the subject is “he,” then ‘who’ should follow the subject. Here, the guy who the ‘I’ believes to have the best chance is winning the award.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whomever in the graduating class. He or she who has done the most to… is receiving the award as an indirect object, so whom would be correct.</p>
<p>I miss doing these :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both “some…regarding” and “others lauding” are noun phrases. “regarding” and the “lauding” are not verbs; they are participles. The phrases are similar to the noun phrase “the sleeping man,” or “the man sleeping on the floor.” So, since they are both noun phrases, you only have to use the preposition “with” (prepositions have objects): “opinions have been split, with some regarding and others lauding…” If you replace these phrases with normal nouns, it would seem perfectly normal: “I ate with a spoon and a fork.” “While” is a conjunction, which requires a verb. It is like saying, “I ate with a spoon while a fork being used to eat.” Saying “I ate with a spoon while eating with a fork” is still redundant and unnecessary.</p>
<p>When the members of the committee are at odds, (and when also, in addition, they are in the process) of offering their resignations, problems become indissoluble.
B) and also when they are in the process
C)and when, in addition, they are in the process</p>
<p>I chose B but the correct answer is C. I would like to know why choice B is wrong.</p>
<p>After our waiting in line for three hours, (much to our disgust, the tickets had been sold out) when we reached the window.
A)The same
B) the tickets had been, much to our disgust,
C)the tickets had been sold out, much to our disgust</p>
<p>The correct answer is C but I don’t know why the other answer choices are wrong.</p>