<p><a href="A">Surely</a> one of the most far-reaching changes in the nineteenth century <a href="B">will be</a> the change from working <a href="C">at home</a> <a href="D">to working</a> in the factory. <a href="E">No error</a>. </p>
<p>There is no error in that sentence, but SUPPOSEDLY the answer is B. There is no caveat on the SAT saying "assuming this was written in 2005, would it be correct." For all I know, it could be an excerpt from a history textbook, quoting something that someone said in the 18th century.</p>
<p>Kind of unlikely that it was written in the 18th century, since the point was that factories were mainly a phenomenon of the 19th cent and beyond.</p>
<p>You can amuse yoursef making up arguments like that, but surely, you realize that they will only hurt you if you use them when you take the test.</p>
<p>Yes, obviously unlikely -- but I don't see how they can put that question on there if there is nothing grammatically OR stylistically wrong with it. I shouldn't have to base my answers on whether or not a question is likely to be wrong. </p>
<p>Is anyone with me? That sentence could be perfectly fine in the appropriate context. I don't think i'm making assumptions, I think i'm being objective. To mark it as incorrect would be making an assumption. Yes?</p>
<p><em>Without context</em>, there is nothing wrong with this sentence. It would be just as easy for me to write a paragraph in which that sentence would be grammatically wrong as it would be for me to write a paragraph in which it were grammatically correct. </p>
<p>CLEARLY, it is much more likely that we should refer to the 19th century in the past tense... I can't argue with that. But I still feel it's an unfair question </p>
<p>(IE, when I was taking this practice test, i KNEW that the 19th century is in the past... i'm not a total dumbass... but without context i don't see how it could be considered grammatically wrong)</p>
<p>Quite frankly I'm surprised that more people aren't agreeing with me. (lol)</p>
<p>Because the SAT is designed to have stupid tricks that make you get easy questions wrong. And in analyzing the question deeply, I decided that it didn't necessarily have to be wrong. </p>
<p>Obviously you could say "99 times out of 100, that kind of mistake would be WRONG". If this were a common occurrence -- and we knew that it was safe to make reasonable assumptions about questions -- then it would be fine. But I've taken 4 practice tests and they never do anything like this. Every other writing question has been purely objective, IE it HAS to be wrong. This one doesn't.</p>
<p>There's also the problem that a person must be absolutely prophetic to make a statement like that in a future context. Not only does this person have to know of the advent of a major change, he/she must also know of nearly all other changes that will take place in that particular century, as well as the relative merits of all these changes in order to make a comparison and to conclude that this change will be the most "far-reaching". Furthermore, knowing that the change will be "far-reaching" looking even further in the future, beyond the time of the prophecy and into the time when the events of the prophecy had long unfolded! Such a statement makes very little sense in the future tense.</p>
<p>So?
What if a prophet said it?
It could also be in a movie or something where two guys from the future come back to the past and talk to each other.
I don't think anything like this would be on the SAT.
You cannot say that this sentence is grammatically incorrect.</p>
<p>the point is that since the first word is surely... so it is with certainty that means past tense...also far-reaching changes means predicitng the result too ..definetely past tense.there is grammatical logic here no context.... so must be """"was""""""</p>
<p>the point is that since the first word is surely
So why can't the error be at A?
You know what, i dont even care I got a 780 on practice writing... its reading that kills me</p>