Written Communication and Grammar Flashcards

A detective writes the following sentence in a witness statement summary: 'Neither the complainant nor the witnesses was able to identify the suspect.' What is the grammatical error, and what is the correct verb form?

Answer: 'Was' should be 'were' — when 'neither/nor' connects a plural noun closest to the verb, the verb must be plural

The 'neither/nor' rule follows proximity agreement (the 'proximity rule'): the verb agrees with the noun or pronoun closest to it. 'Witnesses' is plural and is closest to the verb, so the correct form is 'were.' If the sentence read 'Neither the witnesses nor the complainant...,' then 'was' would be correct.

An officer is completing a use-of-force report and writes: 'The subject, along with two associates, were observed fleeing the scene.' Which of the following best describes this sentence?

Answer: It is grammatically incorrect — 'along with two associates' is a parenthetical phrase and does not affect the subject, so the verb should be 'was'

'Along with,' 'as well as,' and 'together with' are prepositional phrases that do not create compound subjects. The true grammatical subject is 'The subject' (singular), so the verb must be 'was.' This is a common error in police reports. If plural intent is needed, the officer should write 'The subject and two associates were observed...'

Which sentence demonstrates the most precise and unambiguous use of a restrictive versus non-restrictive clause in a police report context?

Answer: 'The officer who responded first secured the perimeter.' (no commas — identifies which specific officer)

A restrictive clause (no commas) is used when the clause is essential to identify which person or thing is being described — it restricts the noun to a specific one. 'The officer who responded first' tells us precisely which officer. A non-restrictive clause (with commas) adds supplementary information about an already-identified noun. If there is only one officer, commas would be appropriate. The no-comma version is correct when the clause is essential for identification.

An investigator writes in a report: 'Canvassing the neighbourhood at 0300 hours, two witnesses came forward voluntarily.' What writing error does this sentence contain?

Answer: A dangling modifier — 'Canvassing the neighbourhood' must logically modify the subject performing the action, but the sentence implies the witnesses were canvassing

This is a dangling modifier. The opening participial phrase 'Canvassing the neighbourhood at 0300 hours' must logically modify the grammatical subject of the main clause — but the subject is 'two witnesses,' implying the witnesses were canvassing. The officer was canvassing. A correct version: 'While canvassing the neighbourhood at 0300 hours, investigators had two witnesses come forward voluntarily.' Dangling modifiers can create legal ambiguity in police documentation.

In a formal investigative summary submitted to Crown counsel, an officer uses the word 'infer' in this sentence: 'The detective inferred from the evidence that premeditation had occurred, which the prosecutor implied to the jury during closing arguments.' Which statement is accurate?

Answer: Both words are used correctly — 'infer' means to draw a conclusion from evidence; 'implied' means to suggest without stating directly

'Infer' means to deduce or conclude from evidence or reasoning (the receiver of information draws a conclusion). 'Imply' means to hint at or suggest without stating explicitly (the speaker/writer suggests something). In the sentence, the detective correctly 'infers' (concludes from evidence), and the prosecutor correctly 'implies' (suggests to the jury without stating outright). This distinction is critical in legal writing where precise attribution of meaning matters.

A sergeant reviews a constable's occurrence report containing this sentence: 'The suspect fled on foot; however, was apprehended three blocks away.' What is the most accurate critique of this punctuation?

Answer: The semicolon is misused — 'however' here introduces a dependent clause fragment ('was apprehended three blocks away' has no explicit subject), so a comma after the semicolon does not repair the fragment; the sentence requires a subject such as 'he' or 'she'

The semicolon before 'however' is a conjunctive adverb connector and requires an independent clause to follow. 'Was apprehended three blocks away' lacks a subject and is therefore a fragment, not an independent clause. The semicolon cannot rescue a fragment. The correct version would be: 'The suspect fled on foot; however, he was apprehended three blocks away.' This error is common in police reports and can undermine a document's credibility in court.