<p>ImageShack®</a>; - Online Photo and Video Hosting
^ what is the answer, and why??</p>
<p>ImageShack®</a>; - Online Photo and Video Hosting
^ #11, no idea what the answer is LOL</p>
<p>for the first one, the answer is E because the “it” refers to the agency and is most clear.
idk about the second…</p>
<p>the first one is E</p>
<p>“it” refers to the agency and is the correct subject for the second clause of the sentence.</p>
<p>(Written before seeing other posts, sorry. I hope the detail helps.) </p>
<p>The first question tests proper modification.</p>
<p>“By rigorously enforcing state regulations” is a participial phrase in which the verbal adjective “enforcing” must modify some noun. This noun must be the subject of the clause that immediately follows the modifying phrase; it will be the subject of the answer.</p>
<p>The subject in choice (A) is “industrial pollution.” Does pollution enforce regulations? This would be illogical. Choice (B) is even more problematic: The acceptable levels are not reduced, for they are the desired goal, and acceptable levels can likewise not enforce regulations either. We can also get a quick sense that these choices are probably not correct by recognition of the stylistically undesirable use of the passive voice.</p>
<p>Choice (C) is wrong on similar grounds, because a reduction – though perhaps instrumental in the enforcement of the regulations – is not the agent responsible for the enforcement, grammatically or otherwise. </p>
<p>Choices (D) and (E) don’t have the aforementioned problems. “They” and “it” mean to refer to “The agency,” which is a logical enforcer of the regulations. Other than the difference in pronoun plurality, these choices differ in whether “reduce” is in infinitive or gerundial form. “Succeeded in reducing,” in which the gerund is used, is correct; the alternative is incorrect. This is an idiomatic determination rather than the result of any rule, or at least a clear rule without many exceptions.</p>
<p>Thankfully, however, the answer is apparent without knowing that, because “The agency” is singular and there should be referenced with the singular pronoun “it” rather than the plural “they.” The answer is thus (E).</p>
<p>The second question, at its core, also tests participial modification, though knowledge of conditional tense formation is also needed. (Personal note: I remember this question from my administration of the PSAT.)</p>
<p>In choice (A), “By painting them this afternoon” is the participial phrase. The particularly modifying participle is “painting,” so as before, the subject of the clause following this phrase is the noun that will paint. It is fixed as “the walls.” Walls don’t paint. (They prefer to draw, but that’s beside the point.)</p>
<p>Choice (B) uses a dependent clause rather than a phrase, so the mis-modification error is solved. However, its tense is incorrect. “If they would have been painted” is the unreal past conditional tense, which is used when we are referring to some hypothesized past counterfactual – i.e., something that did not actually happen but whose alternative that actually occurred did so in the past. </p>
<p>I almost overthought this question when I first saw it. Correctly, I noted that the effect of such a counterfactual can occur later, even into the future. One could therefore attempt to infer that choice (B) is correct: “This afternoon” may have already happened and had events gone differently then, things would be different tomorrow. This ignores one necessary aspect of the proper formation of this tense, though: “Would be” would need to be “Would have been,” even though tomorrow evening has definitionally not yet occurred, creating “If they would have been painted this afternoon, the walls would have been completely dry by tomorrow evening.” </p>
<p>Choice (C) solves that omission because its tense implies that “this afternoon” is yet to come. “Were they to be painted” is a condensed but nonetheless grammatical variation on “If they were to be painted,” which is the future unreal conditional tense. “Would be” comports with such a tense formation. (Note out of curiosity that the condensed from of the past unreal conditional tense discussed in choice (B) is “Had they been painted.”) (C) is right.</p>
<p>Choice (D) mis-modifies with a participial phrase as in the previous question and in choice (A) of this one. Choice (E) creates a comma splice because “They would be painted this afternoon” lacks the “if” necessary to subordinate the clause, yielding two independent clauses whose adjacency is separated by only a comma and not a coordinating conjunction too.</p>