<p>Here are 3 Q's i got wrong on the practice test: Can any1 explain why?</p>
<p>(those who) defend sequoia trees (from) loggers (justified) (doing so) on the grounds that such trees are irreplaceable. (no error)
The answer is C. why?
(Opposite to) most people i know, Annie, a good photographer (herself) actually (enjoys seeing) the photographs that her take (on their) vacactions. (no error)
The answer is A. Why?</p>
<p>The introduction of the chili peppers had a tremendous impact on the balance of power among the European countries that were already involved in the black pepper (trade, and, what was even larger in scope, on) Asian and European cultures.
A) trade, not to mention on
C) trade, an impact also on
The answer is A but i went with C because i thot it was parallel, seeing as how it said, "...an impact..." Why A?</p>
<p>1st question i think justified has to be JUSTIFY? “defend” is in the present tense so i guess justify has to be present too</p>
<p>2nd question…uhh idk. opposed to? opposite to sounds wrong</p>
<p>3rd question… not to mention on sounds good to me? it’s not C bc it sounds wrong? lolol i’m no help… i guess “an impact also on” isn’t really complete. it’s like “the chilli peppers…an impact also on” so if you were to use impact again, it’d probably be like “; it also had an impact on…”
it’s probably A bc you already mentioned impact, and now you’re just extending what that impact had an effect on soo it would sound like this “the chilli peppers had a tremendous impact on this, not to mention on this” ? sorry this is confusing. i just think it sounds right :P</p>
<p>I want to say it should be “Opposite from”
I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I agree with notajingoist. I think “, which was an impact also on” would have sounded better, but since that is not there I would have went with A.</p>
<p>Yeah, the first question’s “justified” should be in the present tense.</p>
<p>I think the second question is flawed; the use seems supported by the American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition. (The book use “The effect of the medication was opposite to that intended” as an example sentence.)</p>
<p>The only reason it may be wrong is if the College Board contends that “opposite” can’t be used to introduce a participial phrase, which is plausible.</p>
<p>For the third question, there is no nothing linking the two phrases. If (C) were correct, the sentence would read: </p>
<p>“The introduction of the chili peppers had a tremendous impact on the balance of power among the European countries that were already involved in the black pepper trade, an impact also on Asian and European cultures.”</p>
<p>^actually it can be…in the new BB, there was a new practice test that had an error of wordiness–something like saying “every year” even though in the sentence it said the word “annually”. “every year” was not needed. Hence, it’s verbose.</p>
<p>I meant verbosity in the sense that a more efficient combination of words with the same meaning could be substituted. What you described is redudancy, which has long been tested by the error-identification questions. </p>
<p>Granted, redundancy is a type of verbosity; however, no other type of verbosity will be tested with these types of questions. “Opposite to” is not redundant.</p>