teteatete

Needs commas to function within that sentence, which the answer choice didn't have. The commas indicate that the clause proceeding the -ing verb can be removed or moved, as shown below.

[Requiring] high monthly premiums, medical insurance [is] beyond...
Medical insurance [is]..., [requiring] high monthly premiums.

>>what type clause should it introduce?

Dependent clauses, bounded off by commas. -ing verbs cannot be the functional verbs of a main clause. Though I'm sure you know this, since you seem quite knowledgeable.

Retro12

I did not know that, thanks for the info.

Acershelp

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin used x-rays to discover the chemical structures of pencilin and vitamin B12, (winning a Noble Prize for her work)

why (winning a Noble Prize for her work) is the right choice I thought it would be
a misplaced modifier since it modifies Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin

silverturtle

Bumping this thread not only to answer the last poster but also because there may be renewed interest in having a consolidated thread of this sort.

Acershelp, you are correct in noting that the participial phrase "winning a Noble Prize for her work" modifies "Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin." The modifier is not misplaced, however: A participial phrase is rather flexible in its placement as long as it is attached to a clause whose subject is what it means to modify.

Here, for instance, "Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin" is indeed the subject. The participial phrase could be placed in at least the following three ways:

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin used x-rays to discover the chemical structures of penicillin and vitamin B12, winning a Noble Prize for her work.

Winning a Noble Prize for her work, Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin used x-rays to discover the chemical structures of penicillin and vitamin B12.

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, winning a Noble Prize for her work, used x-rays to discover the chemical structures of penicillin and vitamin B12.

But if we wanted to, say, modify "x-rays" with a participial phrase, we would have to be more careful because it is not the subject of the sentence. We could do this:

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin used x-rays, being an analytically useful form of electromagnetic radiation, to discover the chemical structures of penicillin and vitamin B12, winning a Noble Prize for her work.

dan4422

What ks the difference between has been, had been and had
and also is it advocate of or advocate to?

dan4422

the most successful algebra teachers do not have their students simply memorize formulas and equations; they make sure that their students also understand the underlying mathematical concepts
a) most successful b) their c) make sure that d) understand e) no error

among the most dangerous environmental threats that we face are compu-garbage, the nonbiodegradable and often toxic waste resulting from the improper disposal of obsolete personal comupters.
a)among b)are c) often toxic d)disposal of e)no error

rosa17

Hey Silverturtle,

i was wondering if you have a list of important misused idioms and subject-verb agreement questions. i am currently working on my sat grammar section. on june i got a 620, so i would atleast like to get a 700 in october. please if you can help.

JefferyJung

Has been is a present perfect construction for the verb to be.
Had been is a past perfect construction for the verb to be.
had is a simple past of the verb to have.

I can only think of two prepositions that would work with the word "advocate". The word "advocate" can be used with "of" or "for". It can also be used without any preposition when it is used as a verb.

steven3355

"[By building new windmill farms, consumption of fossil fuels are reduced, and tons of carbon dioxide emissions are kept] out of the atmosphere"

Choice A By building new windmill farms, consumption of fossil fuels are reduced, and tons of carbon dioxide emissions are kept

Choice B By building new windmill farms, it reduces consumption of fossil fuels, and tons of carbon dioxide emission are kept

Choice C Building new windmill farms reduces fossil fuel consumption and keeps tons of carbon dioxide emissions

Choice D When new windmill farms are build, they reduce fossil fuel consumption, and it keeps tons of carbon dioxide emissions

Choice E New windmill farms, when built, reduce fossil fuel consumption, and also tons of carbon dioxide emissions are kept

The correct answer is C

I answer was A, I don't really know why C is the correct answer, can you please explain it with extra details English is not my native language Thank you

thenerdyjew

In contrast to or in contrast with?
Studies have shown or studies show?

nhollen

When preparing to write a research paper, you should gather information from books, periodicals, and the Internet, {and your documenting of sources should be carefully done}.

B and document your sources carefully
C and you should document your careful sources
D because your sources need to be documented carefully
E yet you need to carefully document your sources

The correct answer is B, but doesn't that leave an extra comma?
without the preposition, that reads "you should gather information, and document your sources"

Is there an obscure convention of putting a comma after listing items or something like that?

yellowcat429

I'm somewhat confused about the correct usage of words like will and would with likely/probably. Consider this:

1. It is likely that the Coen brothers' latest movie, originally scheduled to be released in time for Thanksgiving, would be postponed until summer because of unforeseen postproduction difficulties. No error.

The error in this was 'would be'. After searching, I came to the conclusion that 'would' confers a sense of might be/likely/probably and thus, cannot be used with likely. It should be replaced here with 'will' because will probably = would.

That was until I came across this. :S

2. Some of the workers who resent the supervisor's authority would probably feel uncomfortable if they were to acquire the independence that they demand. No error.

I chose 'would probably' as the error, but the answer key says this sentence has no error. Can someone please enlighten me on the correct usage of 'would' in light of these examples?

QuantMech

That's a difficult question, yellowcat429. The will/would distinction is not usually taught in grammar courses in the US. Rather, it is one of the conventions that most educated native-English speakers learn "by osmosis," more or less. I can't give you a quick way of differentiating between the two (your analysis in post #1122 was logical, but it didn't work), other than to remark that "would" is a conditional.

I would suggest looking at a good grammar book, intended for non-native speakers, as well as native speakers. For example, I believe there is a Cambridge Guide to English Grammar that might cover this topic reliably. You might try Googling " grammar would vs. will." Unfortunately, some of these contain correct examples, but give summative statements that could lead you astray. For example, the site Difference Between Would and Will | Difference Between | Would vs Will
is reliable in general, but indicates that "will is a definite statement," so that you use it when you are certain that the future action will occur. The problem with this condensed version is that it would not permit you to spot the error in sentence 1. "Will" is properly used there (even though there is uncertainty), because you want the simple future. There is no grammatical signal for a conditional.

I realize that this is not so helpful! Most simple rules do not encapsulate the subtleties of the usage. For example, I had intended to state that "would" is not used in a clause that starts with "If." One sometimes hears sentences such as "If I would have known, I would not have done that." This sentence is *wrong*! Emphatically! "Would" should not follow "If" in this context. However, it is correct to say, "If you would be so kind, blah blah blah," so that's not a firm rule.

There are some discussions of first/second/third conditional on the web that are good, but again, they are largely example-based, and might not address the specific issues that are tripping you up.

QuantMech

Also, I have to say that despite silverturtle's status as a Grammar Titan, the use of "being" in the last example in post #1114 ("being an analytically useful form . . ") is not actually the best English construction. It would be better to drop "being" entirely, leaving a simple appositive in that sentence. It seems to me that the CB folks generally don't like "being" that much. I suspect that the corresponding word is frequently used in another language.

pooh09

The lecture talk about the research conduct by company who use groups to handle their work. He stated that theory regarding benefits of group is different and somewhat in accurate when compared to what happen in real.
First, few members got free rides. They didn't work hard but got recognition for achievements of group.on contrary the people who actually panned and handwork to achieve the goals not individually appraised or awarded as it thought be a group achievement . This leads to decrease in morale and motivation of honest and hard workers of team. which directly contradict what passage indicates.
second, groups were slow in progress.The passage says that groups are more responsive than individuals because more number of people involved will increase speed of work and resources with new ideas.However, the speaker talk about firm found out that how the groups were slower in decision making than individual. Every individual have different thought process and plans . It take hours of meeting and decision which was important to reach a common solution. This was another part where experiment opposes theory.
Third and last, influential people may immerse and leads the group toward glory and failure.If influential people going in right direction by taking right decision there would be no problem. But in case where they go in wrong direction there is no body infective enough to contradict their decision in other words groups might turns into dictatorship in which these so called leader never follow other ideas no matter they are right or wrong.They might became one sided, thus to fail to succeed.