<p>Although it was hardly an issue, Jake's opinion is that he should try to make an effort to resolve anything.</p>
<p>and this sentence too please</p>
<p>“I wanted to try an idea: have kids trade candy for money so that their teeth wouldn’t go bad.”</p>
<p>haha one more</p>
<p>"They tell me I should not care anymore. However, it’s going to affect the rest of my life - which is why still I do care.</p>
<p>opinion on the issue maybe</p>
<p>Well, for the first one, [Jake’s is opinion is that he should] is unnecessarily wordy. And that sentence is phrased a bit awkwardly, I’m not sure I even understand what the sentence is trying to say.</p>
<p>Not sure for the second, but I don’t think the second phrase should not be offset by that colon, since it isn’t a list of items or an appositive.</p>
<p>For the third one, the dash should be a comma since [which is why still I do care] is a dependent clause.
And I’m not sure if this is an error or not, but the sentence would better read as [They tell me I should not care anymore; however, it’s going to affect the rest of my life, which is why still I do care.]</p>
<p>None of the sentences are grammatically incorrect. However…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the referent of “it”? Does the author really mean to write “try to make an effort” or would “make an effort” suffice?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sentence is fine. The colon is appropriate because “have kids trade candy…” is the appositive of “idea.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The en dash should be an em dash, but I would prefer a comma over both of those. “it” has an unclear referent. Also, some object to the use of “which” when the referent is an entire clause.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A semicolon is not necessary there. Personally, I find the common practice of inserting a semicolon before conjunctive adverbs to be awkward.</p>
<p>
“It” is referencing an problem brought up in an earlier sentence. So the author should get rid of “try to” shouldn’t I?
What was confusing me was when it changes tense from “was” to “is”, or is that fine?</p>
<p>I have another one too
Should “even slightly” be in there or should it be “make better, even if only slightly.”</p>
<p>another one…
</p>
<p>Silverturtle, doesn’t the [;however,] make more sense since both the clauses go hand in hand? </p>
<p>And, I’m pretty in Silverturtle’s guide he stated “an exophoric pronoun in the context of the SAT is always incorrect.”</p>
<p>Although it was hardly an issue, Jake’s opinion was that he should try to make an effort to resolve anything. </p>
<p>“I wanted to try an idea**;** have kids trade candy for money so that their teeth won’t go bad.” </p>
<p>“They tell me I should not care anymore. However, it’s going to affect the rest of my life - which is why still I do care.” <– The words are mixed. “which is which I do still care” would be the appropriate phrasing, however, “which is why I still care” is a better phrasing.</p>
<p>
“was” was “is” because it is saying that Jake still has that opinion, not just in the past.</p>
<p>
Pretty sure he thinks it’s grammatical. He just personally doesn’t like the construction.
The sentence is contrasting a past event with a present event, like Although he left his house with no jacket, he is not cold.</p>
<p>A lot of these sentences are awkward and could be improved simply by “flipping” them around. </p>
<p>Although it was hardly an issue, Jake’s opinion is that he should try to make an effort to resolve anything. becomes </p>
<p>Jake believes that he should make an effort to resolve any issue, however minor.
--------------------------------
They tell me I should not care anymore. However, it’s going to affect the rest of my life - which is why still I do care. becomes </p>
<p>Because it’s going to affect the rest of my life I do care, even though they say I shouldn’t.
-------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>I should try to be active about things I could make even slightly better. becomes </p>
<p>Even if I can make things only slightly better, I should try. </p>
<hr>
<p>But the next sentence is unclear because its ambiguous what “it” refers to – hard work or better grades. “By working harder, I can have better grades for the rest of this year and for the next four - that’s why it still matters to me.” So you have to make an assumption or ask the writer to clarify. I would assume its the grades that are important so 'd rewrite it as thus: </p>
<p>If I work harder I can have better grades, which are important to me.</p>
<p>The time frame (the rest of this year and the next four years) is unnecessary and confusing since all the action is future action after the hard work.
--------------------------------------------
As E.B. White once wrote: Omit needless words! (And if you don’t know who that is ask your English teacher. If your teacher doesn’t know then, well, you need another school!) The sort of awkward wording the OP asks about is fine in everyday speech, but in good writing its not, unless you’re writing the speech of a fictional character or journalistically quoting someone.</p>
<p>it was (TAKE NOTE PAST TENSE) hardly an issue, Jake’s opinion is (PRESENT TENSE)</p>
<p>in context does the tense switching make sense…NO… error is IS</p>
<p>^^^^Um, no. In the second sentence “wouldn’t” is clearly correct while “won’t” isn’t.</p>
<p>Silverturtle is right in that “try to make an effort” is redundant. It isn’t ungrammatical, but it also isn’t good style. The referent of “it” is presumably some event that precipitated the comment regarding Jake’s opinion. That event occurred prior to the comment, therefore there is a logical reason for the was/is tense shift.</p>
<p>The issue in the second sentence is of mood. The speaker uses the declarative and imperative moods in “I have an idea” and “have kids trade”. The general effect is factual and assertive. “Wouldn’t”, on the other hand is subjunctive. It deals with the possibility of fact and is less definite. Suddenly the speaker seems unsure. Agreement in the more assertive mood would call for “teeth won’t go bad”. Agreement in the subjunctive mood would require a conditional subordinate clause to introduce the idea as in “if the kids traded candy for money, their teeth wouldn’t go bad.”</p>
<p>In the third sentence, the question is: what should the writer do with “still”. It is an adverb, so there are several possible locations for the word in the sentence. Generally, modifiers should be close to the words they modify. Adjectives have little latitude in that regard, but adverbs can shift locations in order to shift emphasis. The location depends upon the writer’s purpose. So four possible locations for ‘still’ are all grammatically correct:
“why still I do go”, “why I still do go”, “why I do still go”, and “why I do go still”. Admittedly, the first and last examples to sound more formal and archaic, perhaps, but still acceptable (or but acceptable still). </p>
<p>In the fourth sentence the semicolon is called for because it separates the two main clauses in a compound-complex sentence (in which you have at least two main clauses and one subordinate clause).</p>
<p>In the final sentence, attention seems focused on “even slightly” as the source of the awkwardness, but I would look to the word “active” as the cause of the difficulty. It is too general and vague. Try “improve” as a possible substitute. “I should try to improve things I could make even slightly better” seems to eliminate some of the clatter, since it is more concrete and consistent with the key word “better”. </p>
<p>I agree with many of the comments about these sentences. BigAppleDaddy is right in his stress on economy of words and directness of thought, and Silverturtle is right as well in that many things are grammatically correct, even if they are stylistically awkward.</p>
<p>That event occurred prior to the comment, therefore there is a logical reason for the was/is tense shift. </p>
<p><- did not notice that.
So the error is the redundancy?</p>
<p>thank you everybody, especially Wood5440!</p>