3/26/01
1. NUMBER 21. The Joneses have visited; Hawaii and Alaska, and
they assure me that they. like
Alaska the best.
The correct answer was D, there was something wrong with having ( the
best) in there. For my answer, I put that there
was something wrong with (assure). it seemed to make sense to me. Why was I
wrong to think that that there was no problem with (the best) in the place that
it was being used in?
ANSWER: THE BOOK'S ANSWER IS CONSISTENT WITH GS.
<BEST> IS USED WHEN COMPARING MORE THAN TWO ITEMS. <BETTER> IS USED
WITH TWO. NOTHING IS WRONG WITH <ASSURE>.
2. NUMBER 26. Kathy was definitely a faster swimmer than anyone
on her team and appeared headed for the
state championship.
The correct problem area for this question the
word anyone; I had a different answer and I thought that there was more of a
problem with the word 'headed.' It seemed to be missing something. No one in my
group could tell me why my answer was wrong,
I am wondering if I missed something or could
there really be more than one thing wrong with the sentence?
ANSWER: THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I
WOULD THROW OUT BECAUSE THE ANSWER THE KEY GIVES IS, IN MY OPINION, A LITTLE
UNREASONABLE FOR A TIMED EXAM EVEN THOUGH THE BOOK'S ANSWER IS LOGICALLY
CORRECT.
THE CORRECT ANSWER SHOULD BE <ANYONE ELSE>.
THE REASONING BEHIND THIS IS THAT <ANYONE ON HER TEAM> INCLUDES
<KATHY> AND SHE CANNOT BE FASTER THAN HERSELF.
I THINK MOST OF US WOULD ASSUME THE SENTENCE IS
NOT COMPARING HER WITH HERSELF. BUT THE BOOK IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.
3. NUMBER 54. Sitting under an umbrella at a tiny table in
a sidewalk cafe, Bob was startled when a gust of wind suddenly
carried it away.
The correct problem area for this question was (it), but I thought
that (suddenly) really did not need to be part of the sentence. I
can see that it is rather difficult to distinguish just exactly what (it)
should be referring to, but I still think that there are other problems
with this sentence.
ANSWER: WHEN TAKING THESE KINDS OF GENERAL
EXAMS, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE MOST OBVIOUS PROBLEMS. NEARLY ANYTHING IN ANY
SENTENCE CAN BE QUESTIONED IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT LONG AND HARD ENOUGH.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH <SUDDENLY>
THOUGH IT CAN, AS YOU POINT OUT, BE DELETED.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS A PRONOUN REFERENCE
PROBLEM WITH <IT> SINCE THERE ARE TWO (OR THREE) NOUNS TO THE LEFT THAT
COULD BE POSSIBLE ANTECEDENTS.
STAY FOCUSED ON THE LEVEL OF PROBLEM THAT THE
QUESTIONS ARE ADDRESSING.
4. Kathy was definitely a faster swimmer than
anyone on her team and appeared headed for the state championship.
I couldn't find the problem with this one.
The only thing i could think of was that 'anyone' should be anybody. But if
that's the case i still am not sure why.
<SEE ANSWER TO Q2 ABOVE>.
5. Our supervisor noticed it was we, Diana and
me, who always turned in our reports on time.
My question on this one is: what can 'we' be
replaced with to fix the sentence. 'Us' doesn't sound good either. Is the only
choice to completely remove 'we'?
ANSWER: <WAS> IS A LINKING OR BE-VERB
SO IT IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY THE SUBJECTIVE CASE, IN THIS CASE, <WE>. SINCE
THE APPOSITIVE (THAT RE-IDENTIFIES THE PRONOUN> SHOULD BE IN THE SAME CASE AS
<WE>, THE PRONOUN SHOULD BE <I>.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE KINDS
OF WEIRD SENTENCES THAT ONLY OCCUR ON GRAMMAR EXAMS SINCE IT IS AN ODD MIXTURE
OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL USAGE.
55. Sitting under an umbrella at a tiny table in
a sidewalk cafe, Bob was startled when a gust of wind suddenly carried it
away.
I see why they are saying that 'it' was
wrong, but isn't this sentence somewhat ambiguous? We aren't sure exactly what
was carried away. If it was just the umbrella, wouldn't 'it' work?
ANSWER: <SEE THE ANSWER TO 3 ABOVE.>
I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. THE
ANTECEDENT TO <IT> IS <THEORETICALLY> AMBIGUOUS. IF YOU REMOVED ONE
OF THE POSSIBLE REFERENTS, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE AMBIGUOUS BUT THEN YOU WOULD
HAVE A DIFFERENT SENTENCE.
THIS AGAIN IS A GOOFY GRAMMAR QUIZ KIND OF
SENTENCE BECAUSE AN UMBRELLA WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO BE BLOWN AWAY BEFORE THE
TABLE. IT WOULD SEEM VERY STRANGE TO IMAGINE THE TABLE BEING BLOWN AWAY AND NOT
THE UMBRELLA. IT IS FOR THIS NON-GRAMMATICAL REASON, IN FACT, THAT THE
<CAFE> ITSELF IS NOT ANOTHER POSSIBLE ANTECEDENT.
1)In EM, Chapter 4, Exercise 3, #13--Horses______ find
their way a great distance from home cannot be thought
of as dumb animals.
Could either which or that be acceptable? Depending upon your perspective, it would seem that the adjective clause could be either
restrictive or non-restrictive.
ANSWER: I WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS WITH <HORSES
WHICH> MYSELF. THE BASIC RULE THAT YOU USE <THAT> WITH RESTRICTIVE
CLAUSES GENERALLY WORKS, THOUGH I OFTEN USE <WHICH> IN RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES
IN MY OWN WRITING.
IN REGARDS TO THE OTHER QUESTION, THE WRITER
CLEARLY INTENDED THIS TO BE A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE. HE/SHE WAS ONLY REFERRING TO
HORSES WHO SHOW THAT QUALITY.
THE 'PERSPECTIVE' YOU SHOULD TAKE IN THESE CASES
IS THAT OF THE WRITER. WHEN YOU WRITE, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE YOUR PUNCTUATION
REPRESENTS YOUR INTENT.
2)In EM, Chapter 5, Exercise 9, #7
African-Americans who have made many important cultural contributions to our
country are often reviled by the ignorant. Couldn't this adjective clause be
restrictive as well?
THE WRITER INTENDED THIS TO BE A RESTRICTIVE
CLAUSE. HE/SHE WAS ONLY REFERRING TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS WHO HAVE MADE IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTIONS. THE IMPLICATION IS THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT CERTAIN
AFRICAN-AMERICANS MAY ACCOMPLISH AS INDIVIDUALS, THE IGNORANT WILL ONLY LOOK AT
COLOR.
3)In EM, Chapter 5, Exercise 10, #3--Two quarts
of milk, WHICH cost much less than a pound of meat, have more food value as far
as I am concerned.
The book states that this should be a
non-restrictive adjective clause, but how could it be when the comparison is
necessary to complete the sentence?
ANSWER. FROM EM'S POINT OF VIEW, THE COMPARISON
IS NOT BETWEEN THE COST OF THE ITEMS BUT THEIR FOOD VALUE.
>>TWO QUARTS OF MILK HAVE MORE FOOD VALUE
<THAN A POUND OF MEAT<<
ON THE OTHER HAND, MAKING THE CLAUSE RESTRICTIVE DOESN'T HELP EITHER BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN ONLY MILK THAT COSTS LESS THAN MEAT WOULD HAVE MORE FOOD VALUE. SO I AGREE THAT THE SENTENCE IS NOT CLEAR GIVEN WHAT THE WRITER WANTS TO SAY.