I got these grammar questions right, but...

Test Preparation SAT Preparation
1

<p>Can someone explain to me exactly why? I just got them right on the sound…</p>

<li>Knowing the roots of words that are hard to spell helps students to become a better speller</li>
</ol>

<p>Answer: (C) helps students to become better spellers</p>

<p>What is the subject of the sentence? If it is actually “roots of words” (plural), shouldn’t it be “help”?</p>

<li>Free from British ruole after the American Revolution, a strong central government was an ida that many of the representatives attending the Constitutional Convention were wary of</li>
</ol>

<p>Answer: (C) Many of the representatives attending the Constituional Convention were wary of a strong central government</p>

<p>Why not the other option:</p>

<p>(D) many representatives at the Constitutional Convention, wary of a strong central government.</p>

<li>At graduation, the speaker assured us that our many courses in the liberal arts had prepared us equally well for the challenges of working and further study</li>
</ol>

<p>Answer: (B) had prepared us equally well for the challenges of work and of future study.</p>

<p>Now, when you’re referring to two phrases with the conjuction “and”, does there have to be parellelism every time? (i.e - to work and TO play)</p>

<li>The legend about Admiral Nelson, like other naval heroes, are based only partially on fact.</li>
</ol>

<p>Answer: (E) like legends about other naval heroes</p>

<p>I got this Q right, just because I thought E was most specific. But why is the original wrong?</p>

<li>Bats and mosquitoes come out at twilight, and the bats would look for mosquitoes and the mosquitoes would look for people.</li>
</ol>

<p>I got this one wrong, but the answer was:</p>

<p>(E) the bats to look for mosquitoes and mosquitoes to look </p>

<h2>Why?</h2>

<p>Thanks.</p>

2

<ol>
<li><p>“students” is the subject; “students” don’t become “a better speller”; they become “better spellers.” Students is plural; speller must be plural as well.</p></li>
<li><p>The alternate has no verb. “Free from British rule after the American Revolution, many representatives at the Constitutional Convention, wary of a strong central government.” This is not a complete sentence.</p></li>
<li><p>Yes, there needs to be parallelism.</p></li>
<li><p>Because the subject of the sentence is about the legends, not about Admiral Nelson. You’re not comparing Nelson to other naval heroes, you’re comparing legends about Nelson to other legends.</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t need another full clause. The correction makes it a sharper sentence. There’s no reason for the word “would”. (I’m sorry, this one I can’t explain well.)</p></li>
</ol>

3

<p>For question 4, the gerund “knowing” is the subject. See <a href=“Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University”>Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University;

<p>For question 7, option D does not form a sentence (no verb).</p>

<p>For question 9, see <a href=“Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University”>Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University;

<p>For question 13, the subject of the sentence is legend, while Admiral Nelson is merely the object of a preposition. Try reading the sentence without “about Admiral Nelson.”</p>

<p>Question 14, answer E describes the purpose of both coming out at twilight.</p>

4

<p>for 14, “would” isn’t right on the SAT because it shifts the verb tense from the present-tense “come” earlier in the sentence, and the SAT hates that.</p>