<p>Hi, yellowimpact, I answered your question in #900 previously (probably on a different thread), but here goes:
The idea here is that the viewers found the clothing advertisements tasteless. Therefore, they condemned them as tasteless, meaning that they condemned them, believing that they were tasteless.
The ads didn’t become tasteless after the viewers condemned them; they already were tasteless.
This contrasts with the situation in Robin Hood movies, or others with evil judges, in which the judge might condemn the hero to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. In this case, the hero is “condemned to be hanged” because the hanging is in the future–in fact, it is averted, in the standard version of the story.
There is at least one subtlety here, which is that “condemned to be” has a different set of connotations from “believed to be” or “thought to be”<br>
You could correctly say that the viewers condemned the clothing ads because they believed them to be tasteless. This shows a distinction between the uses of “condemn” and “believe.” In this case, the tastelessness is not in the future. “To be” can be used as the present infinitive form with believe or think–and also with “believed” or “thought,” without adjusting the tense.</p>
<p>waitingforivy, #902, one doesn’t “prefer X more than Y” because the verb prefer already has the idea of “liking more than” built into it. Therefore, one “prefers X to Y.”</p>
<p>Fatchoco #886, I don’t think redjohn’s explanation has exactly nailed your question. The problem, in my opinion, is the use of “when.” The quality of being a “remarkably witty man” is not something that one turns on and off, even though one might turn his wit on and off. Would the sentence (as written) mean that he did not make insulting remarks when he was not a remarkably witty man? The intended meaning of the sentence is that the friends tolerated the insults because the man was remarkably witty. So I think you could keep the commas exactly as is, but replace “when” by “because” and have a valid sentence.</p>
<p>After school, Jason buried his report card in the woods; the reason is because he had failed all his classes.</p>
<p>(a) …
(b) woods; this was because he had failed
(c)…
(d)woods because he had failed
(e)…</p>
<p>Is answer choice B grammatically incorrect, or is answer D just the better one because it’s shorter?</p>
<p>There’s nothing grammatically wrong with B, but it’s wordy. D is more concise; it’s correct.</p>
<p>HOW TO UNDERSTAND THIS!!!
If at least one wuzzle is grumpy, then
some fuzzles are lumpy.
If the statement above is true, then which of
the following must also be true?
(A) If all wuzzles are grumpy, then all
fuzzles are lumpy.
(B) If no wuzzle is grumpy, then all
fuzzles are lumpy.
(C) If all fuzzles are lumpy, then all
wuzzles are grumpy.
(D) If no wuzzle is grumpy, then no fuzzle
is lumpy.
(E) If no fuzzle is lumpy, then no wuzzle is
grumpy.
answer is E</p>
<p>The concept of black holes was first proposed a century ago, but not until more advanced technology became available did the detection of such occurences become a reality.</p>
<p>Why isn’t C correct? Isn’t ‘more advanced’ redundant?</p>
<p>Because the elderly dog’s physical condition rapidly descended …
What would be an appropriate word to correct this error?</p>
<p>The amount of people who go to the library…
Why is ‘amount’ wrong? Is it supposed to be ‘number’ or something?</p>
<p>
In logic, if the statement If X, then Y is true, then the contrapositive If -Y, then -X must also be true. You flip the order and negate both sides to get the contrapositive. If at least one wuzzle is grumpy, then some fuzzles are lumpy. Now, if is NOT true that “some fuzzles are lumpy,” then it is NOT true that “at least one wuzzle is grumpy.” This is precisely what answer choice E says. Here are a couple of examples of such logic:
GIVEN: If you know that it will rain today, then you’ll bring an umbrella.
IMPLIED: If you’ll not bring an umbrella, then you don’t know that it will rain today (or you know that it won’t rain).</p>
<p>GIVEN: If something is a bear, then it is an animal.
IMPLIED: If something is not an animal, then it is not a bear.
No, “more advanced” is not redundant. The writer of the sentence considers whatever technology to have been available a century ago to be advanced; however, the NEW technology that BECAME available after a while was MORE advanced.
There are many possible substitutions. The first that comes to mind is deteriorated. “Descended” is wrong because descend refers to physical motion (e.g., The skier descended the hill); it can’t be used to describe someone’s medical condition.
Yes, “amount” should be “number.” “Amount” can’t describe things that are countable (like people); it can only describe uncountable nouns like *space<a href=“%22amount%20of%20space%22”>/i</a>. (You can measure space and talk about it in terms of meters or something, but you can’t say “1 spaces,” “2 spaces,” etc. like you can “1 person,” “2 people,” etc.)</p>
<p>The famous filmmaker [had a tendency] [of changing] his recollections, perhaps [out of boredom] [at having] to tell interviewers the same story over and over. [No Error]</p>
<p>The television station [has received] many complaints [about] the clothing advertisements, [which some] viewers condemn [to be] tasteless. [No Error]</p>
<p>tendency TO change; condemn AS tasteless</p>
<p>This was in response to cadillac’s question: 15) Please give this scholarship to whoever in the graduating class has done the most to promote goodwill in the community. No error.</p>
<p>Perhaps we shouldn’t be so hasty to criticize Barron’s. They are actually correct in that the answer is no error. The use of whoever is correct in this sentence although it does not appear to be at first. Isolating the second part of the sentence and replacing whoever with the simpler “he” yields “he in the graduating class [who] has done the most to promote goodwill.” Clearly, this is much preferred to the incorrect “him in the graduating class…”</p>
<p>
First, that post, in the first page of this thread, is a year old, so I don’t know why you decided to respond to it. Second, Barron’s is not very accurate in replicating SAT questions, a reason why many criticize test material not coming from the College Board. Third, the varying distinctions between “who” and “whom” are not tested on the SAT. And finally, you are right that “whoever” is generally preferred to “whomever” in that construction since it is the subject of the verb in the noun phrase “whoever . . . has done. . . .” The entire noun phrase, in turn, is the object of the preposition “to.” This, of course, like I said, is irrelevant to the SAT.</p>
<p>The whoever/whomever issue reminded me of the line in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and for his orphan.” The mavens of English usage seem to have decided that “to whomever who” is too awkward to use. Bwong012 is right about what’s correct. It is possible that a question like this might appear on the ACT (don’t know for sure), though presumably not on the SAT. There was a question of this sort on a standardized test I took a very long time ago–the National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test, which preceded the PSAT as the NM qualifier.</p>
<p>Few issues of public policy (are) as likely to provoke widespread interest as (that) involving possible (danger to) the health or safety of children.NO ERROR
the answer is C could anyone explain??</p>
<p>
I assume C refers to “that.”</p>
<p>Presumably, the writer wants “that” to refer to one of the “issues.” But “issues” is given here as a plural noun, so you can’t refer to one of the issues as “that.” (You can, however, refer to “issues” as “those,” since that is consistently plural.) So “that” should be “the issue”: “Few issues of public policy are as likely to provoke widespread interest as the issue involving. . . .”</p>
<p>Some questions I am having trouble with…</p>
<ol>
<li>[Whether the ancient Egyptians actually sailed or did not] to South America remains uncertain, but Heyerdahl’s Ra II expedition demonstrated that they could have done so.</li>
</ol>
<p>What is wrong with it? I don’t see the error…
(the correct answer was “That the ancient Egyptians actually sailed”)</p>
<ol>
<li>The exchange between the teacher and the student [promotes] learning [far different] from that which results [as] the student listens [but does not] participate. </li>
</ol>
<p>What’s wrong with “as”?</p>
<ol>
<li>A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning was the dramatic [monologue, it let him explore] a character’s mind without the simplifications demanded by stage productions.</li>
</ol>
<p>The choices I was stuck between were “monologue, which let him explore” and “monologue that lets him explore”. The correct answer is the former, but I thought it should be “lets” because monologue is singular… Is there a rule here that I am unaware of?</p>
<ol>
<li>The museum [is submitting] proposals [to several] foundations [in] the hope [to gain] funds to build a tropical butterfly conservatory.</li>
</ol>
<p>Why is “to gain” wrong? What is the correct idiom?</p>
<ol>
<li>When the news spread [how new goldfields were discovered] in Nome, Alaska, thousands abandoned Dawson, the site of the previous gold rush.</li>
</ol>
<p>I was stuck between as is and “about new goldfields that had been discovered”
What’s wrong with “how new goldfields were discovered”?</p>
<p>That’s it… haha
I’m sorry for having so many questions. Writing is hard :/</p>
<p>Oh yeah and thanks in advance to whoever answers my questions!!</p>
<p>
“Whether the ancient Egyptians sailed or did not” is wrong; it should be “Whether the ancient Egyptians sailed or not,” which would make the sentence correct.</p>
<p>“That the ancient Egyptians actually sailed” refers to the event of the sailing; we don’t know whether this event took place, so we say “The event that the ancient Egyptians actually sailed remains uncertain,” or (simply) “That the ancient Egyptians actually sailed remains uncertain.” Think of the phrase “I’m not sure that it’s true.” From that you can logically rearrange the sentence, and say “That it’s true I’m not sure” or “Whether it’s true I’m not sure.”
The sentence isn’t really talking about something that’s actually happening. It’s talking about a situation that is generally true. So if I were talking about what happens when a man and a woman go into a bedroom, I would say “When a man and a woman go into a room with a bed. . . .” Never “As a man and a woman . . .” unless I’m talking about something that’s happening, as opposed to just a general, hypothetical situation, as if I’m telling a story. “as” should be “when” or “whenever” (in this context they mean basically the same thing).
The significant distinction between those two answer choices is that one uses the past tense “let” (e.g., “I let him get away”) and the other uses the present tense “lets.” The sentence is in the past tense (read: “A poetic form congenial to Robert Browning was . . .”), so “let” also has to be in the past tense (in this particular context).
“the hope to gain” should be “the hope of gaining.” You say “I have hopes of winning,” not “I have hopes to win.” However, you do say “I hope to win” (where “hope” is a verb rather than a noun). It’s hard to explain why one is wrong and the other is right. I believe in silverturtle’s guide (in the SAT forum, the thread stickied at the top of the list-of-threads) he talks about these “idioms.” (They’re not really “idioms,” just prepositional structures.)
Well, the construction [[clause] [how [clause]]] is grammatical, as in “[[I don’t care] [how [you do things]]].” “how” in this case roughly means “about the manner in which”: “I don’t care about the manner in which you do things.” So “when the news spread about the manner in which new goldfields were discovered” is grammatical, but it doesn’t make sense with the rest of the sentence, semantically. Thousands went to the new site of the gold rush not when the news spread about how they were discovered; they did so when the news spread about the discovery itself. They could care less about the manner in which the gold was discovered. Thus “When the news spread about new goldfields that had been discovered in Nome, Alaska, thousands abandoned Dawson, the site of the previous gold rush” is correct.</p>
<p>Just an addendum to crazybandit’s remarks: We know that the ancient Egyptians either sailed to South America or did not sail there. Therefore “Whether the ancient Egyptians actually sailed or did not” is 100% certain. They did or they didn’t–no other options.</p>
<p>If the question read “[Whether the ancient Egyptians actually sailed] to South America is not known,” I’d allow “whether” in that construction–is there an SAT rule against it?</p>
<p>wow! thanks for the help guys :)</p>
<p>I’m sorry, I made a mistake in my understanding and explaining the first question. “Whether the ancient Egyptians actually sailed or did not” is grammatically correct in itself. It can be broken down into “Whether they sailed or did not sail,” or perhaps more commonly, “Whether they sailed or not” or (simply) “Whether they sailed.” The sentence is wrong only because in the context it would not work with the second part of the sentence:
“that they could have done so” means “that they could have acted in the manner expressed.” The “whether” subordinate clause expresses two alternatives, so “the manner expressed” is ambiguous. You can’t say “Whether they sailed or did not sail remains unclear, but someone demonstrated that they could have.” Could have what? Could have sailed, or could have not sailed? “That they actually sailed remains unclear, but a person demonstrated that they could have done so (the sailing)” is syntactically perfect.</p>