<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>These questions aren’t accurate, richardaddo. I wouldn’t recommend using whatever book you got them from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In choice (C), “In addition” is surrounded by commas, so it can be treated as a parenthetical (as if it were in parentheses). “Also” in choice (B) is not, so it must modify a verb (since “also” is an adverb). However, the addition doesn’t concern the verbs; it concerns the conditions (“when…and when…”) Perhaps I am wrong. I don’t know. This question certainly isn’t good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This question is wrong all around. I don’t even think you transposed it correctly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does “that” refer to in choice (B)? It is not clear. The “so” in choice (C) means “as a result.”</p>
<p>is “continue DOING something” grammatically correct? What about “continue TO DO something”?</p>
<p>“continue” can take either an infinitive or gerund complement; both “continue doing” and “continue to do” are correct.</p>
<p>The film critic blasted the remake of “Breakfast as Tiffany’s”, arguing that the leading actress had been cast now so much for her acting ability (but for her physically resembling Audrey Hepburn)
A) the same’
B) as for her physical resemblance to Hepburn</p>
<p>I chose A because I thought the sentence is correct but the correct answer is B</p>
<p>The remarkable Leadership skills (exercised by) General Grant (in) the Battle of Fort Donelson (were) (attributable to) his military experience. (No Error)</p>
<p>I chose (attributable to) because I thought it should be “attributed to” but the correct answer is “No error”. Could someone please explain that to me.</p>
<p>(Some) advanced math concepts (are) difficult for students to understand because (they) (call for) students to think three-dimensionally. (No error)</p>
<p>I chose “no error” but the correct answer is “they”. I am sure its because of ambiguity but it does not seem so to me. Can someone please give me instances when pronouns become ambiguous.</p>
<p>Dogs are (such) loyal creatures that it is not uncommon for (them) to travel many miles (after) (separating from) their owners. No error.
I chose the correct answer, which is “separating from” but I don’t know why it is correct. Could someone please give me an explanation.</p>
<p>When the architect sketched his plans for the castle, (conventional Gothic designs were employed, but it was not strictly adhered to by him).</p>
<p>D) he employed conventional Gothic designs, but they has not been strictly adhered to
E) he employed, but did not strictly adhere to, conventional Gothic designs.</p>
<p>The correct answer is E but I chose D because choice E sounds awkward to me.I would like to know why D is wrong.</p>
<p>This one is an improving paragraph question.
We perform an arrangement of “Love Me Tender,” among other pieces, and also a very funny arrangement of “In the Still of the Night.”</p>
<p>A) as it is now
C)Among other pieces, we perform an arrangement of “Love Me Tender” and ana very funny arrangement of “In the Still of the Night”
E) In addition to an arrangement of “Love Me Tender,” among other pieces, we perform a very funny arrangement of “In the Still of the Night”.</p>
<p>The correct answer is C but I would like to know why the rest of the choices are wrong.</p>
<p>When Doris Lessing published The Golden Notebook in 1962, [it] instantly established herself as one of the most important literacy voices of her generation.</p>
<p>This question comes from official practice test. I am wondering why ‘it’ should be wrong? Doesn’t ‘it’ refer to ‘The Golden Notebook’? Am I wrong because if you use ‘it’, it will refer to 1962 instead of ‘The Golden Notebook’? Or is it because the act of publishing established Lessing?</p>
<p>The difficulty is only ‘3’, but this question somehow confuses me. Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The correct construction is “so much…as”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Attributable describes something that is able to be attributed. The sentence isn’t saying that the skills were actually attributed (by a historian or something), but that it can be attributed depending on how it is interpreted. A likable person is reasonably capable of being liked, but not necessarily actually liked. Something that is attributable to something else is reasonably capable of being an attribute, but it is not actually an attribute.</p>
<p><a href=“Some”>quote</a> advanced math concepts (are) difficult for students to understand because (they) (call for) students to think three-dimensionally. (No error)</p>
<p>I chose “no error” but the correct answer is “they”. I am sure its because of ambiguity but it does not seem so to me. Can someone please give me instances when pronouns become ambiguous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with this sentence. Generally the pronoun is ambiguous since it could refer to either “students” or “concepts,” but what it is supposed to refer to is implied. I may be wrong on this one. This certainly isn’t a good question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It should be “being separated from.” Separate is not a reflexive verb. If I separate two people, the two people are being separated by me. Likewise, the dog and the owners are being separated, have been separated, were separated, etc. The dog is not intentionally separating itself from the owner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Choice (D) uses the singular verb “has” with the plural pronoun “they.” (D) also suffers from the passive voice, just like the original sentence does. (E) is correct because the architect employed and did not strictly adhere to conventional Gothic designs. It is just like saying “he ran and also biked,” or “he ran but did not go far.” It is a very simple sentence really. The “but” is there to contrast, and the commas around “but did not strictly adhere to” are optional: the sentence works with and without the commas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The phrase “among other pieces” encompasses all of the other pieces associated with the piece(s) mentioned. It is ungraceful to say “among other pieces” only to go on and mention another piece by saying “and also…” or “in addition…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You only use the object pronoun “herself” when the subject refers to the same entity: “She washed herself.” If the subject and the object are distinct, you would just use “her”: “It washed her.” Thus it is necessary to say “she…established herself,” which is more semantically desirable anyway.</p>
<p>Wow… I can’t believe I missed that. Thanks!</p>
<p>The new system, which (uses) remote cameras (in the catching of) (speeding motorists), (may undermine) the police department’s authority. (NO ERROR)</p>
<p>I put no error, but the answer is B (in the catching of). At first I thought it was because it should be catchingS of…but the explanation said that 'it is too redundant and could be shortened to ‘to catch’. </p>
<p>But, ETS always has stuff like this that they mark as correct and try to fool you with. How am I supposed to know that the answer is B?</p>
<p>Civil rights leader and author W.E.B. Du Bois was interested in drama because he believed that (if you represented historical events on stage it) could have a greater, more lasting effect than any exhibit or lecture.</p>
<p>A)SAME
B) with the events of history represented on stage they
C) events which were represented historically on stage
D) by representing historical events on stage
E) representing historical events on stage</p>
<p>I narrowed down to C and E. I picked C instead of E because I though the comparison was between whatever you pick and the exhibit or lectures. So, as a result, I thought I noun should be the thing compared, not ‘representing historical events on stage’, but instead ‘EVENTS which were represented historically on stage’.</p>
<p>I realize that C makes it seem like the events aren’t historical but are just depicted that way…but does my logic make sense?</p>
<p>He ought to have done it. -Versus- He should have done it.</p>
<p>If I’m not mistaken, both “ought” and “should,” in this context have the same definition. Can someone tell me how I can logically infer that “to” is to follow “ought,” but not “should”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The speeding motorists are caught because of the remote cameras. Thus, the remote cameras are used to catch speeding motorists. “The catching of speeding motorists” is the process, act, or instance in which speeding motorists are caught. Spelling out some event itself, as opposed to the theoretical purpose of the cameras, is erroneous. It is like saying “guns are used in the killing of people” instead of “guns are used to kill people.” The former implies that in some arbitrary murder scene, guns are used. This clearly is not accurate unless you are talking about a specific scene: “Guns were used in the killing/murder of John.” Since we are simply talking about general usage, as opposed to a specific incident of use, we simply say something like “we use cameras to catch speeding motorists,” or, “we use guns to kill people.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your logic doesn’t make sense. A historical event is an event that happened in history. For example, a battle of some random war that happened 100 years ago is a historical event. You can’t experience it, so the event itself would not influence you in that sense. You LEARN about it, so the LEARNING about it may influence you. You learn about a historical event in an exhibit or lecture. Thus, the exhibit or lecture may have an influence on you. You also learn about a historical event by doing a project, which requires research and learning on one’s own. You can also learn about a historical event by portraying the historical event on stage, which also requires research and learning. It is reasonable to say that doing a project on a historical event or representing a historical event on stage is more influential than a boring exhibit or lecture about the event.</p>
<p>Have you ever heard that writing notes down can help you remember the notes better? You might say that the “writing the notes about the historical event down helped me study,” because the act itself helped you study. Clearly, the historical event itself, which is merely the topic of your notes, did not help you study. Similarly, you might say that “the teacher’s lesson did not help me understand the historical event.” To combine the two, you would say: “Writing notes about a historical event down could have a greater, more lasting effect than any lesson [could have].”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Ought” basically means “be advised.” To be advised to do something is to ought to do something. You can’t really logically deduce something like this. The word doesn’t have a specific definition you can refer to. You just need to know it. Trying to explain this logically is like trying to explain why you would say “need to” but not “must to.” Obviously you could look “must” up in the dictionary and see that one of the definitions is “need to,” meaning the “to” is implied, but that would not be a subjective/logical deduction. It is just a matter of definition and usage.</p>
<p>^thanks crazybandit! that was very helpful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah…are the idiom-questions on the SAT generally logically deducible then, provided that I know the definitions of the relevant words? Or is familiarity with usage going to be an issue…? </p>
<p>I have always relied on familiarity since starting my preparation a few months ago, but that hasn’t worked too well. 
So, I’m looking for some alternate strategy.</p>
<p>^You should try to apply logic whenever possible. If it’s logically incorrect, then there’s a good chance that the phrase is also unidiomatic. However, some idioms have to be memorized. I don’t think it’s worth your time to memorize idioms though, unless you’re not a native speaker.</p>
<p>Luminouzz: Thanks, I’m going to try that out, though I’m not sure if I’ll be able to spot the logical inaccuracies.</p>
<p>And I’m not a native speaker, btw.</p>
<p>^Hm, when are you taking the SAT? It might be worth your time to look over idioms if you have a month+ to go.</p>
<p>However, realize that the writing section is the least important section for some universities. I believe MIT doesn’t even consider it. CR + math is more important, with a slight edge toward the weight of CR. So I would advise you to work on CR and math if you have a decent writing score.</p>
<p>Hey crazybandit/silverturtle,</p>
<p>could you please instruct me about conditionals. I mean if the sentence is </p>
<p>If were a basketball player, he would be rich</p>
<p>Then would the the second clause, “he would be rich”, be right or would it be “he will be rich?” Is it any different for real situations vs hypothetical ones? Oh yeah, and what is the difference between subjunctive and indicative? I looked through several online guides, but I still find your explanations to be the best. Thanks a lot.</p>
<p>There is probably no story more dramatic than baseball’s great hitter and right fielder, Hank Aaron.</p>
<p>Why is “than baseball’s” wrong? Is it supposed to be “than that of baseball’s” instead? I had thought that “baseball’s” would have already implied a story belonging to baseball so the comparison between stories could have been made.</p>
<p>[Because] his experience in the naval medical corps had been [rewarding], Bob [applied to] medical school after he [was discharged] from the navy. No Error.</p>
<p>The correct answer is No Error. i chose D. I thought that was discharged should be changed to “had been discharged” since the action of discharging took place BEFORE Bob applied to medical school. I am very confused about the use of past tense and past perfect tense “had been”.Shed some light pls?</p>