<p>can someone plz explain to me what is wrong with these questions...</p>
<p>Fred Brown (has lvied) (in this house) (for ten years) before he went (to work) for the Bethelehem Steel Corporation.</p>
<p>(As) I sat watching the sun slowly sink toward the rim of the mountain range (beyond) the Rift Valley, I (became aware) of a strange silence.</p>
<p>(To watch) a football game (intelligently), a knowledge (of the rules) and of the function of (each) playe is invaluable.</p>
<p>(Hoping) that he (would recieve) bipartisan support in Congress, the President submitted a legislative program (which) he believed would alleviate the economic (ills) of the country.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>"Has lived" is incorrect because it is in the time before he went to work for the steel corporation, so it must be "had lived."</p></li>
<li><p>No error, I guess.</p></li>
<li><p>I think it's "to watch," just because it implies "For a person to watch," but I really don't know.</p></li>
<li><p>"Which" is incorrect. It should be "that." You don't need a comma when using "that" but you need one for "which."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>1 - had lived
2 - NE
3 - NE - i think while slightly weird, this sentence is gramatically correct.
4 - NE - unless <that> is provided as an alternate answer to <which></which></that></p>
<p>No, it can't be "has lived". It doesn't make sense. He can still be living there, but the whole point is that he HAD lived there BEFORE he went to work.</p>
<p><has> is imperfect, and <lived> is perfect.
(<he went=""> [to work]) is a perfect verb as well, so you need to use the perfect verb tense in the first one to get verb tense agreement in the sentence. you cannot have an imperfect verb and a perfect verb speaking about the same subject in one sentence. <had> is a perfect verb and it agrees with <lived> and <went></went></lived></had></he></lived></has></p>
<p>not really a misplaced modifier. A misplaced modifier is like a prep phrase or other modifier in the wrong place. ie..."I gave the toy robot to Wyatt with a bullet shaped head and red flashing eyes" instead of " I gave the toy robot with a bullet shaped head....to Wyatt."
A dangling element is an introductory element which lacks a subject. ie..."Running down the hill, my hat fell off." This sentence is actually saying that the hat was running down the hill. You need to add a subject either to the first clause "While I was running down the hill, my hat fell off" or to the second clause "Running down the hill, I lost my hat"</p>
<p>The first one can be either lived or had lived but not has lived.</p>
<p>The second one is correct although some purists would insist that "beyond" be changed to "which is beyond" because just using "beyond" could arguably be referring to where the sun was setting rather than where the mountain range was.</p>
<p>The third one really should be "To watching." Take the entire phrase and put it where it really belongs after "invaluable" and you will sense why that is correct. "To watch" would require a person that it refers to and thus you would need something like "one needs" or "you need" just before "a knowledge."</p>
<p>The last one under ancient rules would require "that" instead of "which" but modern usage would allow either so the question should not appear on the SAT</p>
<p>I disagree with the suggestion that "to watch" should be "to watching"; to watching must be preceded by the adjective "invaluable" if used this way:
Invaluable to watching a football game intelligently is a knowledge...
not To watching a football game intelligently,...</p>
<p>The test makers don't use really esoteric English rules, but they frequently use dangling elements similar to the one the sentence in question. You simply need to add a subject to the first clause: In order for a person to watch a football game intelligently, a knowledge of the rules......
A second way to correct the sentence (but they don't give you this option) is: To watch a football game, a person must have knowledge of the rules and the function of each player.</p>