Reasoning Through Language Arts Writing Flashcards

Read the following sentence: 'The committee, comprised of three scientists and two ethicists, have reached a unanimous decision.' Which revision best corrects this sentence? A) The committee, comprised of three scientists and two ethicists, has reached a unanimous decision. B) The committee, comprised of three scientists and two ethicists, have reached an unanimous decision. C) The committee comprised of three scientists and two ethicists have reached a unanimous decision. D) The committee, comprising three scientists and two ethicists, have reached a unanimous decision.

Answer: The committee, comprised of three scientists and two ethicists, has reached a unanimous decision.

'Committee' is a collective noun treated as singular in standard American English, so it requires the singular verb 'has.' The intervening phrase 'comprised of three scientists and two ethicists' is a nonessential modifier set off by commas and does not change the subject. Option B incorrectly uses 'have' and 'an unanimous' (the article before 'unanimous' should be 'a' since 'unanimous' begins with a /y/ sound). Option C removes the commas around the essential-seeming phrase, but still uses 'have.' Option D changes the participial phrase but keeps the incorrect 'have.'

Which of the following sentences contains a dangling modifier? A) Exhausted after the overnight shift, Maria found the walk home particularly difficult. B) Having reviewed the evidence carefully, the verdict surprised the entire courtroom. C) To qualify for the grant, applicants must submit three letters of recommendation. D) Discouraged by the rejection letter, he revised his application before resubmitting.

Answer: Having reviewed the evidence carefully, the verdict surprised the entire courtroom.

In option B, the participial phrase 'Having reviewed the evidence carefully' dangles because it grammatically modifies the nearest noun, 'verdict' — but a verdict cannot review evidence. The subject performing the reviewing is unstated. Option A correctly pairs 'Exhausted' with 'Maria.' Option C correctly pairs the infinitive phrase with 'applicants.' Option D correctly pairs 'Discouraged' with 'he.'

An author writes: 'If I was the hiring manager, I would prioritize candidates with field experience.' What is the grammatical problem with this sentence, and which option corrects it? A) No error; the sentence is correct as written. B) 'was' should be 'were' — the sentence requires the subjunctive mood to express a hypothetical condition. C) 'would prioritize' should be 'will prioritize' — the conditional tense is incorrect here. D) 'candidates' should be 'candidate's' — a possessive is needed before 'with field experience.'

Answer: 'was' should be 'were' — the sentence requires the subjunctive mood to express a hypothetical condition.

The sentence expresses a contrary-to-fact hypothetical (the speaker is not the hiring manager), which requires the subjunctive mood. In the subjunctive, 'was' becomes 'were' regardless of the subject: 'If I were the hiring manager.' This is a common error because 'was' sounds natural in informal speech, but formal written English requires 'were' for unreal conditionals. The other options introduce new errors rather than fixing the actual problem.

A student drafts the following for the GED Extended Response: 'The author of Source 1 argues renewable energy is economically viable. Source 2 says it's not.' Which revision most effectively elevates this writing to demonstrate command of evidence integration? A) The author of Source 1 argues renewable energy is economically viable, but Source 2 says it's not. B) While Source 1's author contends that renewable energy is economically viable, Source 2 directly challenges this claim by citing the substantial upfront infrastructure costs that currently outpace long-term savings. C) Source 1 and Source 2 disagree about whether renewable energy is economically viable or not. D) The author of Source 1 argues renewable energy is economically viable; however, Source 2 says it is not.

Answer: While Source 1's author contends that renewable energy is economically viable, Source 2 directly challenges this claim by citing the substantial upfront infrastructure costs that currently outpace long-term savings.

Option B is correct because it does three things the GED Extended Response rubric rewards: it uses a subordinating conjunction ('While') to establish a clear relationship between the two sources, it employs a precise verb ('contends') rather than the vague 'argues' or 'says,' and it integrates specific reasoning ('substantial upfront infrastructure costs') rather than merely asserting disagreement. Option A adds only a conjunction. Option C is vague and the phrase 'or not' is redundant. Option D adds a semicolons transition but still lacks specific evidence or reasoning.

Examine this passage: 'The regulations affect all employees whom work in the downtown office, as well as those who telecommute regularly.' Which word is used incorrectly, and why? A) 'affect' — should be 'effect' because a noun is needed. B) 'whom' — should be 'who' because the pronoun is the subject of the verb 'work,' not the object of a verb or preposition. C) 'as well as' — should be 'in addition with' for parallel structure. D) 'regularly' — should be 'regular' to match the adjective form.

Answer: 'whom' — should be 'who' because the pronoun is the subject of the verb 'work,' not the object of a verb or preposition.

The relative pronoun introduces a clause where the pronoun functions as the subject performing the action 'work.' Subject pronouns take the form 'who,' while object pronouns take 'whom.' A useful test: substitute 'he/she' (subject) vs. 'him/her' (object) — 'he works in the downtown office' confirms the subject form 'who' is required. 'Affect' is correctly used as a verb here. 'As well as' is a standard and correct connective phrase. 'Regularly' correctly modifies the verb 'telecommute' as an adverb.

Which sentence demonstrates correct and consistent parallel structure? A) The new policy requires employees to clock in on time, submitting expense reports weekly, and that they attend the monthly all-hands meeting. B) The new policy requires employees to clock in on time, to submit expense reports weekly, and attendance at the monthly all-hands meeting. C) The new policy requires employees to clock in on time, to submit expense reports weekly, and to attend the monthly all-hands meeting. D) The new policy requires employees clocking in on time, to submit expense reports weekly, and attending the monthly all-hands meeting.

Answer: The new policy requires employees to clock in on time, to submit expense reports weekly, and to attend the monthly all-hands meeting.

Option C is correct because all three items in the series use the same grammatical form: 'to clock,' 'to submit,' and 'to attend' — all infinitives. Parallel structure requires that items in a series share the same grammatical form. Option A mixes an infinitive ('to clock in'), a gerund ('submitting'), and a dependent clause ('that they attend'). Option B mixes infinitives with a noun phrase ('attendance at'). Option D mixes a gerund ('clocking'), an infinitive ('to submit'), and another gerund ('attending') without consistency tied to the main verb.