Writing and Language Flashcards

Read the following sentence: 'The committee's decision to postpone the vote, which had been anticipated by nearly all of the delegates, were met with widespread relief.' Which revision best corrects the error while preserving the original meaning? A) were met with widespread relief, as anticipated B) was met with widespread relief C) had been met with widespread relief D) were, in turn, met with widespread relief

Answer: was met with widespread relief

The subject of the main clause is 'decision' (singular), not 'delegates.' The intervening relative clause 'which had been anticipated by nearly all of the delegates' is a modifier and does not change the subject. Therefore, the verb must be the singular 'was met.' Option C introduces an unnecessary past perfect that implies the relief preceded the decision, which is illogical. Options A and D retain the incorrect plural verb 'were.'

A student writes: 'Unlike the Romantic poets, the imagery of the Modernists was spare, fragmented, and deliberately anti-heroic.' A writing instructor marks this sentence as containing a dangling modifier. Which revision eliminates the error? A) Unlike the Romantic poets, Modernist imagery was spare, fragmented, and deliberately anti-heroic. B) The Modernists, unlike the Romantic poets, used imagery that was spare, fragmented, and deliberately anti-heroic. C) Being unlike the Romantic poets, the Modernists' imagery was spare, fragmented, and deliberately anti-heroic. D) The imagery of the Modernists, unlike the Romantic poets, was spare, fragmented, and deliberately anti-heroic.

Answer: The Modernists, unlike the Romantic poets, used imagery that was spare, fragmented, and deliberately anti-heroic.

The original sentence dangles because 'Unlike the Romantic poets' must modify a noun or pronoun that refers to people—but 'imagery' is not a person. Option B correctly places 'The Modernists' (people) immediately after the modifier. Option A retains the illogical comparison between poets (people) and imagery (a thing). Option C uses a weaker participial phrase that still leaves 'imagery' as the subject. Option D also illogically compares imagery to poets.

In the passage below, the author uses the phrase 'on the other hand' to introduce a contrasting point. The editor suggests replacing it with a more precisely nuanced transition. Which of the following transitions would most accurately signal that the second point limits rather than flatly contradicts the first? First point: 'Neuroplasticity research confirms that adult brains can form new neural pathways in response to learning.' Second point: '_____, this capacity diminishes significantly after the developmental window of early childhood closes.' A) Nevertheless B) That said C) Conversely D) Notwithstanding

Answer: That said

'That said' is the most precise choice because it signals a qualification or limitation of what was just stated—not a full contradiction. The second sentence doesn't deny neuroplasticity; it restricts its scope. 'Nevertheless' implies the speaker will press on despite the obstacle (slightly adversarial). 'Conversely' implies an opposite scenario, which overstates the contrast. 'Notwithstanding' is typically a preposition (notwithstanding X, Y...) and is awkward as a sentence opener without an object.

Which of the following sentences contains a misplaced modifier that changes the intended meaning in a way that is grammatically permissible but logically absurd? A) The professor only teaches graduate seminars on Tuesdays. B) Sprinting toward the finish line, the crowd erupted in cheers. C) She served cake to the children on paper plates. D) The board nearly rejected all twenty proposals submitted.

Answer: Sprinting toward the finish line, the crowd erupted in cheers.

Option B contains a dangling/misplaced participial phrase: 'Sprinting toward the finish line' must logically modify the grammatical subject of the main clause, but the subject is 'the crowd'—implying the crowd was sprinting, not an athlete. This is logically absurd. Option A's 'only' is a common focus-adverb ambiguity but is not absurd. Option C is ambiguous (were the children on paper plates, or was the cake?) but is grammatically questionable, not strictly permissible-yet-absurd. Option D's 'nearly' modifies 'rejected,' meaning they came close to rejecting all—not that they rejected nearly all—an ambiguity but not logically absurd.

A writer drafts the following sentence for a formal academic essay: 'The results of the longitudinal study were pretty surprising to a lot of researchers in the field.' Which revision best improves the register and precision without altering the core meaning? A) The results of the longitudinal study came as quite a surprise to many researchers in the field. B) The longitudinal study's results were surprisingly surprising to numerous field researchers. C) Many researchers in the field found the results of the longitudinal study unexpected. D) The results of the longitudinal study proved unexpected to a considerable number of researchers in the field.

Answer: The results of the longitudinal study proved unexpected to a considerable number of researchers in the field.

Option D best elevates the register while remaining precise and preserving the original sentence structure and subject. 'Proved unexpected' is formal and precise; 'a considerable number of researchers' replaces the colloquial 'a lot.' Option A uses 'quite' which, while less informal than 'pretty,' still leans colloquial for academic writing. Option B introduces the redundant and awkward 'surprisingly surprising.' Option C shifts the sentence's emphasis from the study's results to the researchers and drops some of the original's emphasis on magnitude of surprise.

Read the following two sentences from a draft essay and the proposed edit: Original: 'The diplomat's strategy was two-fold: first, to build trust among rival factions; and second, to delay any binding agreement until external pressure had mounted.' Proposed edit: Remove the semicolons and replace with commas. Which of the following best evaluates the proposed edit? A) The edit is correct because semicolons should not appear within a list. B) The edit is incorrect because the semicolons are necessary to separate items in a list that already contain internal commas. C) The edit is acceptable because a colon already introduces the list, making semicolons redundant. D) The edit is incorrect because the semicolons mark independent clauses that cannot be joined by commas.

Answer: The edit is incorrect because the semicolons are necessary to separate items in a list that already contain internal commas.

This is a 'super-comma' usage: when items in a list themselves contain commas (e.g., 'first, to build trust' and 'second, to delay any binding agreement'), semicolons are used instead of commas to separate the list items to prevent ambiguity about what belongs to which item. Replacing them with commas would make the sentence confusing. Option A is false—semicolons are specifically appropriate in complex lists. Option C is incorrect; a colon introduces the list but doesn't govern internal separators. Option D misidentifies the clauses as independent (they are infinitive phrases, not independent clauses).