<p>
</p>
<p>There are no objective rules. Here are some cases in which I would consider the comma optional:</p>
<p>I eat but she does not.</p>
<p>Sally runs and he walks.</p>
<p>In general, look for very short clauses that are parallel.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“else” is not a noun, so it has no plural form. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it could.</p>
<p>where is the official explanation for CB’s blue book? I cant seem to find it on CB website</p>
<p>[Welcome</a> to the Official SAT Study Guide Book Owner’s Area](<a href=“SAT Study Guide – SAT Suite | College Board”>SAT Study Guide – SAT Suite | College Board)</p>
<p>Silverturtle,</p>
<ol>
<li>[It is] now generally agreed [that] the rings of the planet Saturn [are composed of several] billion small ice particles. No error</li>
</ol>
<p>The answer to this question is “No error”, but I was wondering if “agreed” should be followed by “on” or “upon” in this case- I originally chose [that] as being incorrect because I thought it was an idiom error.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. People agree on/upon something, but they agree that something is the case.</p>
<p>^Okay, thanks!</p>
<p>btw silverturtle, I’ve come up with the following way to outline your flaw while eliminating vagueness:</p>
<p>your petition’s last 2 or 3 paragraphs (of the portion shared thus far) was as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>The context creates a meaning for the sentence that could only mean that they were searching for justification. Here’s why: (“There is, however, context that eliminates this ambiguity:”)</li>
<li>They were searching for justification (assumed until CB responded, but that cannot be used because they had not responded at the time you were writing the petition)</li>
<li>1a. and 1b. would mean that they were not searching for justification but rather for explication or description. Inconsistent with statement 2, they are ruled impossibilities. ( “that is, an “explanation” as used to mean an elucidating statement (i.e., 1a) would not fit. Furthermore, it is illogical that the scientists would be searching for an explanation of anything (in the sense of 1b), as they would logically be the people attempting to offer this explanation.”)</li>
<li>With 1a. and 1b. out of the way, it’s clear that they were searching for justification. (“What the sentence is instead attempting to convey is that the scientists, despite having knowledge of the swallows’ arrival each spring (i.e., the phenomenon), do not know for what reason”)</li>
</ol>
<p>Looks like a case of begging the question to me, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>i suppose direct hits is necessary then, my biggest problem has been time management and vocab. Hey what about the word list offered by SparkNotes? </p>
<p>[SAT:</a> Improve SAT Score with SparkNotes: The Top 250 Most Difficult SAT Words](<a href=“SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides”>SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides)</p>
<p>there has been some positive reviews on this, is this better than direct hits?</p>
<p>^ it’s not better then Direct Hits. But I would rate it a 6-7/10. If 10 was Direct Hits.</p>
<p>Quick grammar question. Which would be correct?</p>
<p>She has a bigger bed than I.</p>
<p>or </p>
<p>She has a bigger bed than me.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>^The first one.</p>
<p>So would the implied word be “have”, “do”, or something else?</p>
<p>And since it just popped up, is it standard to use quotation marks, apostrophes, or neither when dealing with a sentence such as the one above?</p>
<p>^ “do”</p>
<p>Um…there’s no “standard rule” (that I am aware of) that we follow…Just make sure you’re clear in your question. Your previous post is pretty clear; if that’s how you want to post, that’s totally acceptable…I’m pretty sure that’s what you’re asking…</p>
<p>What I actually meant was whether one would write ‘do’ or “do” when referencing a specific word. Thanks for your answer though.</p>
<p>My friend was arguing that the ‘than’ serves as a preposition in the above sentence, but I see it as a subordinating conjunction. I’m not too sure on this distinction, to be honest, and would appreciate any insight. </p>
<p>Lastly, would the subjective case be appropriate following all comparisons made using ‘than’? Would there ever be an instance where it is better to say “than me” than “than I”? </p>
<p>Thanks again!</p>
<p>^I’m pretty sure that the it doesn’t always have to be in the subjective case…This only works if you are the subject</p>
<p>i.e. Tom likes Rachel more than me…</p>
<p>me would be in accusitive form</p>
<p>antonioray,</p>
<p>I maintain my assertion that the following is sufficient (though I do discuss this more later in the petition):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As explained above, sense 1a is rendered incorrect by the fact that the sentence suggests that the scientists already have knowledge of a description of the phenomenon (found in the independent clause of the question). And sense 1b is rendered incorrect by the fact that people (particularly research scientists) do not search for actions in this context. These explanations may appear to be logically fallacious because the reasons for the senses’ being incorrect are so fundamentally illogical (e.g., “Why does he think that the sky will be blue today?” “Because the sky is blue”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Words that are not being used for their semantic value should be in italics. When italics are unavailable (or you are not inclined to take the time to use them :)), quotation marks should be used.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“than” is serving as a subordinating conjunction there because it is introducing the dependent clause “I [do/have].” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The things that are being compared need to be in the same case. Skyrifle21’s example offers a good illustration of how the meaning can be changed by switching cases. If the sentence were:</p>
<p>Tom likes Rachel more than me.</p>
<p>“Rachel” and “me” would be what is being compared. If the sentence were:</p>
<p>Tom likes Rachel more than I [do].</p>
<p>“Tom” and “I” would be what is being compared.</p>
<p>^Untrue story BTW…</p>
<p>Tom never liked Rachel more than he liked me! =)</p>