<h1>1218: The question about Lorraine Hansberry. A person has "the distinction of being . . . " and not "the distinction to be . . . " One of the issues that CB cares about in the writing section is the improper use of infinitives. In this case “to be” is an infinitive, which cannot follow “distinction.” Speaking in broad generalities, you use infinitives with other verbs; for example, “Horatio wanted to be President,” rather than with nouns (“distinction”). I am sure that people can come up with counter-examples to that general rule, but you might look up the use of infinitives to see what’s correct.</h1>
<p>The reason that D is not correct is that “won” is simple past, but “had been” is past perfect. That means that the event described with the “had been” should precede the event described with the “won.” However, in this case, that would be illogical. So D is also out.</p>
<p>This question has already been asked, but I have not understood the explanation for the answer.</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.</p>
<p>Crazybandit said that it should be “being separated from”, because “separate” is not a reflexive verb. I tried searching in Google for reflexive verbs in the English language, but came up with nothing.
Could someone just give me a better explanation for why “separating from” in this sentence is incorrect?</p>
<p>(There is speculation that the name “Wendy” was) the invention of J.M. Barrie who created a character by that name for his famous play Peter Pan.</p>
<p>A) As it is
E) The name “Wendy” by some speculation</p>
<h1>Can somebody please help me with this question?</h1>
<p>During the 1920s many Cuban painters who had traveled abroad returned to their homeland to produce paintings that were more angular and stylized than conventional Western painters.</p>
<p>(A) conventional Western painters
(B) Western painters who were conventional
(C) those being produced by conventional Western painters
(D) conventions of Western painting</p>
<h1>(E) conventional Western paintings</h1>
<p>The answer is (C), but I chose (E). Why can’t (E) also work? Aren’t both (C) and (E) appropriate comparisons?</p>
<ol>
<li>Swimmer Mark was the most decorated athlete of the 1972 Summer Olympics (Games, he won seven gold medals).
A. Games, winning seven gold medals
B. Games ; seven gold medals were won by him.
Why A not B???
Silvetturtle Help please ! have the MAY exam coming</li>
</ol>
<p>Hello puzzledpimp, remember that this section requires us to choose the BEST answer.
B is not as concise as A and contains passive form, which is not very prefered on the SAT. I wouldnt say B is wrong; it’s just not as suitable </p>
<p>i have a question from the jan 2014 that needs answer and explanation. @silverturtle can you help me out please.
I hope that the (debris will have been cleaned) before the exchange student arrives.
A. is cleaned
B. would be cleaned
i chose B and am not sure if im right.</p>
<p>(A) correctly uses a participial phrase to modify the subject “Mark,” thereby informing us about the athlete’s decoration. </p>
<p>Choice (B) begins with the disadvantage of being less concise, as has been noted. If two choices are grammatically correct, we generally prefer the briefer one unless there is a strong stylistic reason not to. In this case, choice (B) has a couple additional issues: The semicolon is not the best punctuation here, as the two clauses are not at parity (the second clause merely provides a detail about the first clause’s claim). In such a case, we would prefer a colon. Also, the passive voice is not generally undesirable; but if we are to use it, it must be with specific intent to emphasize the new subject. Here, it would make more sense to continue to emphasize the athlete, not his medals, so the active voice would be more appropriate.</p>
<p>(A) is correct. The subjunctive mood is sometimes used with “hope” or 'wish," in cases in which the hope or wish is of something that is unlikely to or not expected to occur, or that has already occurred in a different way. For example:</p>
<p>I hoped that he would have arrived before I came home.</p>
<p>I wish that he would become a duck before I.</p>
<p>Those sentences are both in the subjunctive mood. Choice (B) above is in the subjunctive mood as well, but we do not prefer that answer here because the hope expressed in the original sentence is of something that can be reasonably expected to happen but has not yet happened. Therefore, we would use the same tense as the clause following “before”: the simple present tense, in the indicative (rather than subjunctive) mood, yielding “is cleaned.” </p>
<p>@silverturtle thank you but i do not really quite understand the first example. How is “he would have arrived” not expected to occur or “has already occured in a different way”?</p>
<p>@Sparkkid1234 Look at the difference in tenses between your question and the first example Silverturtle posted. Your example is all in the present tense which means that it could still happen, while Silverturtle’s first example is in the past tense and it is impossible that it is going to happen. Silverturtle’s second example is also not possible because no human can actually become a duck. I hope this helped!</p>
<p>Now, I actually have a couple of questions up my sleeves myself (all from Gruber’s):</p>
<p>1) We have not yet been informed (concerning the one who broke the window).</p>
<p>(A) concerning the one who broke the window
(B) about the identity of the individual who is responsible for breaking the window
(C) of the window- breaker
(D) as to who broke the window
(E) who broke the window</p>
<p>2) The angry outburst of (Father’s) last night was so annoying that it resulted in our (guests) (packing up) and leaving (this) morning.</p>
<p>Now, the answer is B, which I understand because it should be " guests’ ". However, why is “outburst of Father’s” not wrong? Isn’t this like a double possessive? I think you should either say “outburst of Father” or “Father’s outburst” but both of them combined look weird.</p>
<p>3) In the summer, the number of injuries (from ladder falls) soars.</p>
<p>(A) from ladder falls
(B) coming from people falling off their ladders
(C) because of falls from ladders
(D) caused by falls from ladders
(E) which come from the result of falls from ladders</p>
<p>Ok, the answer is D. The answer key says A is wrong because it is ambiguous? I honestly can’t find any difference between A and D. What is the nuanced rationale that I am missing here?</p>
<p>So recently someone posted a grammar question: Forest fires, long (thought to be) a detriment to the environment, (are) now understood (not only) to be (unavoidable) but also to be (a boon) to the forests.</p>
<p>The answer is No error, but I thought it was “a boon”. Doesn’t the plural “forest fires” have to agree with the plural “boons”? So instead, “Forest fires…are…boons to the forests”? Isn’t this similar to the error, “The students wanted to become a doctor”? Multiple students can’t become one doctor, just like multiple forest fires can’t be one boon. Can someone explain to me why in this case, the plural “forest fires” can agree with the singular “a boon”.I find that I confuse myself with this often, and end up marking a sentence with an error, when it actually doesn’t have one. </p>
<p>A major cause of stress in school is (where seniors must manage not only academic requirements and sports schedules, but also) standardized testing and college applications, during the first semester.</p>
<p>Social scientists (agree that) a system (for exchanging) goods and services is (not only) present but also (of necessity) in all societies. (no error)</p>
<p>why is the correct answer (of necessity) and not no error? </p>
<p>@Brackish:
a cause of stress isn’t a place so “where” is inappropriate. (B) is right because it fixes that error (also present in C and D, which uses “when” for something that isn’t a “time”) and maintains proper parallelism.</p>