<p>A(by the early 1920's), Lance Armstrong (or w/e his name was) established B(himself) with songs C (such as) "blah blah" and "blah blah" and was very D(smart).
Now I may have messed up the sentence a bit but thats the gist of it.
I understand the answer is A and I was going to pick it. (should be IN the early 1920's). However changing it to In the early 1920's totally changes the meaning of the sentence.... so i decided to say no error. Can someone explain if we are allowed to change the meaning of sentences?
Also here is another one
Because America is becoming more linguisitc, A(experts) believe B(that) C(curricula) D(wholly or partly) in many other languages. I said D. However they said B. But couldn't you also change D to make it Should be wholly or partly? I mean couldn't that also be considered an error.
Also these questions are on like test 4 or 5 on the on-line course in the big writing section.</p>
<p>You misquoted the sentences. You must post the EXACT sentence in order for others to help you. The correct answer for the first sentence is choice A because "By the early 1920s" implies that Louis Armstrong had completed an action before that time, but the sentence uses the verb "recorded," instead of the required past perfect "had recorded" (which indicates a past action that was completed before another past action or a past time). Therefore, since the verb "recorded" was not underlined, and that part of the sentence cannot be altered, we must change the preposition to "In," which would then work fine with "recorded," a simple past tense.</p>
<p>In the second sentence, the sentence had read "calls that curricula ..." You make "calls FOR <noun or="" noun="" phrase="">," not "calls that <noun or="" noun="" phrase="">." Essentially, what follows the word "that" in the sentence is essentially a long noun phrase, so you must use the word "for" after "calls." You cannot change the part in choice D, since the words "curricula taught" precede it, and it would not make sense to write "calls that curricula taught should be wholly or partly ..." Besides, "calls for" is the proper idiom.</noun></noun></p>
<p>Sure does!!!
What about this one
Given all of the recent problems, if the election were held today I would vote for neither John or Jessie.
Ok I know the wrong past ir "or". But How is it ok to say if the election WERE held today?</p>
<p>"If the election were held today" is completely correct. In other languages, this is called the subjunctive (have you studied any Spanish, for example?). The idea of the sentence is to say hypothetically, if something were to happen, then something else would happen. This is the correct way of expressing this hypothetical situation in English. To say "if the election was held today" is completely incorrect, although common in colloquial speech.</p>
<p>It's the subjunctive form...I didn't really understand it in English until I studied German, but it is used with some verbs to express a condition that may or may not take place. (To me, this is one of the best reasons to study a foreign language -- it does great things for one's grammar!)</p>
<p>It's parallel to "If I were you, I would..."</p>
<p>This is one of those standard written English questions that CB likes to use to test one's knowledge of grammar -- to check if one knows the proper structure, even though most people mangle the proper form all the time! (Ditto the "their" vs. "his or her" error that I see mangled everywhere, from newspapers to teacher's assignment sheets.)</p>