<p>“If I would have known more about the person whom i was writing to, i would have written a better answer.” There are three kinds of conditional tenses:first, second, and third. The first conditional clause is the present tense, in which case you use “will” in your main clause. The second conditional clause is the past tense, in which case you use “would” in the main clause. The third condtional clause is the past perfect tense, in which case you use “would have + past participle”. In your scenario for 3, your using the “would have + past participle” in your main clause, which necesstiates the use of the past perfect tense in your conditional clause. Therefore your should sentence should say something like " If I had known more about the person whom i was writing to, i would have written a better answer.”
For number 2 (i don’t know why im going backwards ), you’re using “could have + past participle”, which is a perfectly acceptable substitute for “would have + participle”, and therefore it requires the substitute of past participle (again). Your sentence should say "</p>
<h2>Bob could easily have gotten a higher score on his college entrance test if he had read more in his school career"</h2>
<p>Can you give me an example of sentences using the 1st and 2nd conditional tenses? (If___ + will) (If ___ + would.) I’m kind of confused about the verbs to use in the conditional clause.</p>
<p>After the uprising of October 10, 1911, that (has led) to (the establishment of) a Chinese republic, many Chinese Americans decided to return to China (in) hopes of a bright future (there). (No error)</p>
<p>I was never very good at differentiating between past tense and past perfect tense. However, by going off cadillac’s assertion, I believe the best substitute would be “had led” because the uprising led to the establishment before the Chinese Americans decided to return.</p>
<p>I believe the answer is A because “has led” means it happened in the past and continues, but the establishment can only be led to once. so It should be “led” instead.</p>
<p>In the wild, chimpanzees are found only in an inaccessible region south of the Zaire River, since such is the case, very few are in captivity.</p>
<p>a) and very few are in captivity because of that.
b) and so no more than a few are in captivity.</p>
<p>I went for a because “and so…” sounds too informal to be correct grammar, but I suppose it is? The only thing I didn’t like about a was “because of that.” Is a wrong because “that” is ambiguous?</p>
<p>Many ancient Eastern rulers favored drinking vessels made of celadon porcelain [because of supposedly revealing the presence of poison by cracking].
*I put as is because it sounded grammatically correct. Why is it incorrect?
Answer: because it was supposed to reveal the presence of poison</p>
<p>In the 1980’s, the median price of a house more than doubled, [generally outstanding the rate of inflation.]
*The answer is as it is, but the below choice made me to guess, in the end I got it correct but I want to know why is the bottom choice wrong?
Another choice: generally this outdistanced the rate of inflation</p>
<p>Among the discoveries made possible by the invention of the telescope [they found] that dark spots existed on the Sun in varying numbers. </p>
<p>*I put “No Error”
Why is they found wrong? If it is because ambiguity of “they,” then is it because it is not referring to anything? Should I assume ambiguity when I see words like “they”?</p>
<p>…they still use the hammer more than [any tool].
*Is it supposed to be “any other tool”? If so, why is just “any tool” grammatically wrong?</p>
<p>Houses of stone? Shouldn’t it be houses of stones (plural to plural)?</p>
<p>The famous filmmaker had a tendency [of changing] his recollections.
*Why is it wrong?</p>
<p>Norwegian writer Sigrid Undset is like the novelist Sir Walter Scott in her use of historical backgrounds, but unlike [his books], she dwells on the psychological aspects of her characters.
*Why is it wrong? </p>
<p>The television station has received many complaints about the clothing advertisements, which some viewers condemn [to be] tasteless.
*Why is it wrong?</p>
<p>Because traffic was (unusually heavy), Jim arrived ten minutes late (for) his job interview even though he had (ran desperately) all the way (from) the bus stop.</p>
<p>To insist that a poem means whatever (one) (wants it) to mean is often (ignoring) the intention and (even) the words of the poet.</p>
<p>"In the wild, chimpanzees are found only in an inaccessible region south of the Zaire River, since such is the case, very few are in captivity.</p>
<p>a) and very few are in captivity because of that.
b) and so no more than a few are in captivity."</p>
<p>I’d go with B. The “because of that”, I believe does not outline the cause-effect relationship as clearly as B.</p>
<p>From Ingenium: </p>
<p>Because traffic was (unusually heavy), Jim arrived ten minutes late (for) his job interview even though he had (ran desperately) all the way (from) the bus stop.
I think the error here is in “for”, he didn’t arrive FOR the interview, he arrived to it.</p>
<p>To insist that a poem means whatever (one) (wants it) to mean is often (ignoring) the intention and (even) the words of the poet.</p>
<p>I think the error here is in “ignoring” as it is not parallel.</p>
<p>'Driven by the desire for power, Hilter initiated the war."</p>
<p>The sentence is foremost active in voice. The subject is Hitler, and the predicate is “initiated the war.” Because Hitler is the one who initiated the war, the sentence is active.</p>
<p>"look at these two simple sentences:
Mark Twain lived in Hartford for several years. Mark Twain is the author of Huckleberry Finn</p>
<p>can I combine them like this: Lived in Hartford for several years, Mark Twain is the author of Huckleberry Finn."</p>
<p>“Lived” cannot introduce a participial phrase by itself. The participial phrase would have to be “Having lived.” However, I don’t like connecting those two ideas in this way because the participial phrase really has no causal relationship with the clause.</p>
<p>“Because traffic was (unusually heavy), Jim arrived ten minutes late (for) his job interview even though he had (ran desperately) all the way (from) the bus stop.”</p>
<p>At the very least, “ran desperately” is wrong. The correct past participle of “to run” is “run” not “ran.”</p>
<p>i know 'Driven by the desire for power, Hilter initiated the war" is active; I meant to say the past participial phrase is passive. Are there examples with active past participial phrases?</p>
<p>sorry, i am still kinda confused ~~
first, is “having done” structure a past participial phrase?</p>
<p>second, from wikipedia:</p>
<p>The past participle may be used in both active and passive voices:</p>
<p>forming the perfect aspect: The chicken has eaten.
forming the passive voice: The chicken was eaten.
modifying a noun, with active sense: our fallen comrades
modifying a noun, with passive sense: the attached files
modifying a verb or sentence, with passive sense: Seen from this perspective, the problem presents no easy solution.</p>
<p>past participles can have active sense, but what about past participle phrases? you may also refer to this page [Passive</a> *– present & past participial phrases](<a href=“http://www.grammar-quizzes.com/passive3d.html]Passive”>Present Participle Clauses 2 | Grammar Quizzes) that basically tells “A sentence with a passive verb can be shortened to a modifying clause by using a past participle modifying phrase.”</p>