<p>1- Piloted flights to Mars have not been planned (because it requires) costly and complicated technology.</p>
<p>C) because they would require
E) as they are requiring</p>
<p>Answer is C , why not E? Will not C make verb inconsistency?
...................................................................................................................................................................................</p>
<p>2) A-(Despite receiving) praise B-(for) its special effects, the movie was criticized because its characters were so weak as C-(being) D-(scarcely) believable. E-(no error)</p>
<p>Answer is C
why is being wrong??? i see that it modifies "characters" .
...................................................................................................................................................................................
3- This is a paragraph improvement question: </p>
<p>The title of the sixth Star Trek movie, The Undiscovered Country, comes from the "To be or not To be" speech in Hamlet.
Even the phrase "household [words" that might partly entitle this essay] comes from Shakespeare's Henry V.</p>
<p>A. Words" that could title, partly, this essay
B. Words,"part of a good title for this essay,maybe,
C. Words" that would partly be a good title for this essay
E. Words,"which could be part of a good title for this essay,</p>
<p>Answer is E.
well i chose B because i saw the problem originally in "might",so i wanted something present to have verb consistency with the rest of the sentence. but why the answer is E???</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“flights” is a noun, not a verb, and it requires a plural pronoun</p></li>
<li><p>“so weak as being” is not idiomatic. There isn’t even a simple fix for this. You’d need to write something like, “so weak that they were scarcely believeable.”</p></li>
<li><p>“part of a good title” is the correct idiom. B does not work because “maybe” is too casual for formal writing, and “part of a good title for this essay, maybe” sounds like the speech of a child. “which could be” is standard written English.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Be sure you know the difference between “may be” and “maybe.” The latter is appropriate for fiction or the kind of writing you’d find in a popular magazine, but not for formal writing.</p>
<p>@wasatchWriter , thanks for your help but for no. 1 , i know that the main verb is “have” so why would choice b which has a past verb is correct instead of choice e that has a present verb."are requiring " though i know it’s progressive .</p>
<p>and for no. 2 , i think you removed an un-underlined word. “as” …
i have read several explanation that said to change “being” to “to be” or even to have a parallel structure by replacing “being” with “were” to obtain (were so weak = were scarcely believable) ie. v - adv- adj = v = adv = adj
would you agree?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Are you thinking “would” is past tense? It is not. It is a conditional form of “will” which is formed the same way.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t see a lot of benefit in repairing these broken sentences. I suggested a possibility that seemed natural to me. In this case, sure, you could use “so weak as to be,” but the result sounds stilted to me, and I would not write it that way myself.</p></li>
<li><p>“could” is the only tensed verb in the sentence. That <em>makes</em> the sentence in the past, and nothing else in the sentence is inconsistent with that. If the writer wanted to tell the story in the present, then “can” would be correct, and it would control the tense of the whole sentence.</p></li>
</ol>
</p>