Writing question please help/ silverturtle/fogcity anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Is this a complete sentence? By building houses, carbon emissions can be reduced, in the sea.
I say NO because when you remove the phrase between commas the sentence is not complete. That is, the dependendent clause 'By building houses in the sea' needs to be attached to an independent clause/ main clause.
So it should be instead: By building houses, carbon emissions can be reduced, in the sea, people can live happily. In which case what is left over: By building houses in the sea, people can live happily, is now complete!</p>

<p>Am I right in saying this or not?
Thanks</p>

2

<p>The carbon emissions don’t build the houses. You would have to say something like “By building houses, carpenters reduce carbon emissions.”</p>

3

<p>Okay that aside if I said then to make sure there are no modifier errors and said
By building houses, The United States can reduce carbon emissions, in the sea.
Is this a complete sentence now?
I say NO because when you remove the phrase between commas you are still left with a dependent clause: By building houses in the sea. This needs to be hooked up to an independent clause correct so sentence is still a fragment even with the correct modifier am I correct?</p>

4

<p>The short answer is that the construction:</p>

<p>clause, subject-verb-object, another-clause.</p>

<p>is a sentence.</p>

<p>The question that you’re asking is whether the sentence that you use as an example makes sense. Your argument of removing the middle part (subject-verb-object) and looking at what is left over doesn’t seem like a general approach for evaluating the correctness of the construction.</p>

<p>I can’t easily add words or make changes to the example you provide that ends up with a sentence that makes sense.</p>

<p>In any case try:</p>

<p>By building energy efficient houses, the American construction industry can help reduce carbon emissions in major metropolitan areas.</p>

<p>Note that the “second” comma is not necessary. In fact if you place it after “industry” you force a confusing (and incorrect) pause.</p>

5

<p>So it is not a fragment? i.e. it is a complete and perfect sentence?
I still dont understand why 'By building houses, The United States can reduce carbon emissions, in the sea. ’ is not a fragment.
I am more concerned as to whether it is a fragment or not and nothing else.</p>

<p>Is there some way I can contact you fogcity e.g. via email to discuss this. You could write me a personal message with your email or something. I am having troubles with the grammar stuff as you can see and really need someone to help me.
Cheers</p>

6

<p>I am just reviewing fragments and therefore only care about fragments and no other rule so bare with me. I dont really mind if the sentence makes sense or not I am wandering whether the sentence is complete i.e. not a fragment. What about this: </p>

<p>If asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal, the beatles would be the choice for many, no matter what kinds of music are actually preferred. </p>

<p>Ok so I know the modifier is dangling but what about the sentence as a whole is it a fragment? I would say yes
I have been told that if you eliminate what’s between commas what is left over has to be complete for the sentence to be a complete sentence. If we remove ‘the…many’
We are left with ‘If asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal no matter what kinds of music are actually preferred’. Which to me is a fragment because you have a dependent clause ‘If asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal’ which needs to be connected to a main clause but it isnt</p>

<p>So we could change it to: If asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal, many people would choose the beatles. Is this still a fragment or is it perfectly grammatically corrrect? </p>

<p>Referring to my previous example By building houses, the USA can reduce carbon emissions, in the sea, the USA can help the planet. Would it be a complete sentence now, not a fragment because I have added the main clause ‘the…planet’</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

7

<p>Your last example:</p>

<p>If asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal, many people would choose the Beatles.</p>

<p>is very much a sentence.</p>

<p>There is an implicit part to the first clause. I’ll put it in brackets:</p>

<p>If [they are] asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal, many people would choose the Beatles.</p>

<p>Again, I’m not sure of the context of the rule you mention. I don’t think it is generally valid. There are situations in English where words are implied, such as the “they are” above.</p>

<p>Quite apart from your clause versus sentence question your first example in post #6:</p>

<p>“If asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal, the Beatles would be the choice for many, no matter what kinds of music are actually preferred.”</p>

<p>is grammatically flawed, so it’s hard for me to take it seriously. The antecedent of the implied pronoun (after “if”) is ambiguous. But rearranging the sentence a bit to remove all ambiguities you have:</p>

<p>“When [they are] asked to name a musical group with broad and lasting appeal, most people, no matter what kind of music they actually prefer, would choose the Beatles.”</p>

<p>Your final proposed sentence</p>

<p>“By building houses, the USA can reduce carbon emissions, in the sea, the USA can help the planet.”</p>

<p>has multiple grammatical problems unrelated to your question so again it is hard for me to take it seriously. I actually don’t even understand what it means. What’s worse is that it seems like two unrelated sentences tied together with a comma splice.</p>

<p>Anyway perhaps your rule would work in some situations if you take into account the implicit pronouns in one or the other clause. English is a complex language with many rules, idioms and exceptions. The SAT rarely tests the boundaries of the language.</p>

8

<p>Thanks for the help fogcity. I think I have been focusing too much on learning the grammar of the SAT to be honest, and I believe I am paying for it now in the tests. I have realised that one thing is to know your stuff, but applying it is a whole different ball game. I now understand the maxim ‘Practice makes perfect’
Cheers</p>