Practice Test

Why it is hard

The stray sentence is camouflaged by its links to the opening: screens recall the media of sentence 1, and “isn't natural” sounds like the passage's theme. What gives it away is its advice, to leave the building, when the passage argues for bringing nature into it, along with its chatty tone. Students who cut a sentence for being general or practical have judged by style rather than by the passage's claim.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 16 echoes sentence 1's “endless media content” with its “electronic screen,” so it seems connected, yet its call to “get outdoors” pulls against a passage about bringing plants inside. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four listed sentences span paragraphs 3 and 4, and each mentions nature, plants or well-being, so each must be read in place and tested against the passage's point. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Say in one phrase what the whole passage argues, then read each listed sentence in place and ask whether it supports that argument or steers the reader toward a different idea.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Cuts sentence 11 because it turns from air quality to the mind, though it is the topic sentence of the paragraph on psychological benefits.

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Sees the advice of one live plant per 100 square feet as a practical aside, though it tells readers how to get the benefit the passage describes.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Thinks sentence 15's “connecting with nature” strays beyond indoor plants, missing that “even just by being near an indoor plant” ties it directly to the passage's topic.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph is short, plainly worded and about two named girls, so the one singular pronoun stands out once students look for the person each pronoun stands for. Points are lost mainly by students unsure what “vague” means, who suspect a sentence with several pronouns or a plural “they” instead. Tracing each pronoun back to its noun settles the question in seconds.

1. Something you must already know minor Working it out

   Students must know what makes a pronoun vague: “she” in sentence 3 could mean either Eliza or Brianna, while each plural “they” clearly means both girls. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)

Strategy: Circle every pronoun, draw a line from each to the noun it replaces, and look for one where the line could go to more than one person.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Sees two pronouns, “their” and “they,” in the first sentence and suspects confusion, though both are plural and plainly refer to Eliza and Brianna together.

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Thinks “The girls” and “they” are too general and wants the names repeated, though both point clearly back to the two girls just named.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Wonders whether “they” could include the choir members of the sentence before, though “Both girls” at the start of sentence 4 fixes who “they” are.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The errors sit together in the paragraph's last sentence, and neither is heard easily, so students who judge by ear look for problems elsewhere. The strongest pull applies two familiar but wrong rules, no comma before “and” and a plural pronoun for a mixture of several ingredients, to a sentence that is already correct. The question rewards testing each pronoun against its noun and each comma against a rule before reading the pairs.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   Both real errors sound natural: “each pancake … when they start to bubble” passes because several pancakes are cooking, and “sweet delicious breakfast” seldom sounds as if it needs a comma between its adjectives. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Eight underlined spots are paired into four proposed revisions, one pair per sentence, and a pair is right only if both of its edits fix real errors, so every edit has to be tried in place. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, test each underlined spot yourself: find what each pronoun and verb refers to, and decide whether each comma is needed. Then look for the pair whose two edits both fix real errors.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.
• Agreement: A verb that does not agree with its subject, or a pronoun that does not agree with the word it stands for.
• Punctuation: A comma, semicolon, colon, dash or apostrophe used where it does not belong, or missing where it does.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Deletes the comma after the first of three names in a series and changes “their” to “her,” though the pronoun refers to all three siblings.

• B Agreement (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Counts two tasks, opening the box and pouring, and wants the plural “are,” though the subject is the singular “job,” and drops the comma before “slowly adding.”

• C Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Applies the rule that a comma never comes before “and,” though this one joins two complete clauses, and makes “it” plural for the ingredients, though it means the mixture.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The faulty pronoun is camouflaged by the list right before it, which makes a plural sound natural, so students who read by ear pass the last sentence and flag a correct one. The likeliest victim is sentence 2, where “it” comes before the noun it stands for, which some students wrongly believe is not allowed. The question rewards asking, for each pronoun, what noun it stands for and whether the number matches.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   “Them” in sentence 4 follows the plural list “downturned mouth, slimy skin, and pale coloring,” so it sounds right, though what was voted ugliest is the singular blobfish. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The stem names no kind of error, and every sentence has a pronoun or a set-off phrase that could be suspect, from the opening appositive to the “Because it has” clause, so all four must be checked. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Check each sentence in turn: the subject and verb, what every pronoun refers to, and what each describing phrase attaches to, without trusting how smoothly the sentence sounds.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Suspects the long interruption “a creature that certainly resembles its name” or the comma in “pink, gelatinous,” though both are correct and the sentence is complete.

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Believes a pronoun cannot come before its noun, so flags “Because it has very few muscles,” though “it” correctly looks ahead to “the blobfish” in the main clause.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Assumes “It” must point to the nearest noun, “the ocean floor,” and calls it unclear, though only the blobfish could wait for food to float by.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook's explanation of sentence 1 calls “a creature that certainly resembles its name” a clause; it is an appositive phrase, a noun phrase that renames “the blobfish”, and now says so. Its explanation of sentence 2 says the “Because…” clause “modifies the words ‘the blobfish’”; an introductory “because” clause tells why something happens, so it modifies the verb, and the sentence now says it explains why the blobfish spends its life floating. The answer, sentence 4, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Students no longer have to supply the fix, only find the faulty spot, so the question rests on recognizing a comma splice. The error sits in the first sentence behind a long museum name, while the phrases “including Muhammad Ali’s boxing gloves” and “written in 1863” look more suspicious to anyone unsure about phrases set off by commas. Testing each spot for a full sentence on both sides finds it quickly.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   A comma alone joins two full clauses at “Institution, the,” and because the long museum name delays the break, the comma reads as a pause rather than a missing period. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The first clause runs 19 words, most of them the museum’s name, so by the time “the museum is already” arrives it sounds like a continuation, not a new sentence. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each of the four clickable phrases straddles a comma or a period, so students must check, at every one, whether the words on each side could stand as a sentence. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Find the subject and main verb of each sentence and count how many complete thoughts it holds, then check whether the punctuation at each underlined spot suits what comes on either side.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Suspects the break after “year” because two sentences meet there, though a period already separates two complete sentences correctly, each with its own subject and verb.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Believes a phrase opening with “including” after a comma is a fragment, though it correctly attaches examples to “more than 30,000 objects” within a complete sentence.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Thinks “written in 1863” cannot describe the copy without “which was,” though the sentence already has its verb “is” and the participial phrase is correctly set off.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of choice 3 calls “including Muhammad Ali’s boxing gloves and a dress sewn by Rosa Parks” a “nonrestrictive appositive phrase.” An appositive renames a noun; this phrase gives examples of the objects, and “including” followed by a noun phrase works as a preposition, so it is a prepositional phrase. The explanation of choice 4 calls “written in 1863 during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln” a “nonrestrictive clause”; it has no subject or finite verb of its own, so it is a participial phrase. The site now says “nonrestrictive prepositional phrase” and “nonrestrictive participial phrase.” Both parts are still correctly constructed, and the answer, “Institution, the,” is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The dangling phrase is easy to accept because the reader already knows from sentence 1 what left the residents in the dark. Students who do not ask what the opening phrase describes look elsewhere, and sentence 4 is the likeliest victim, since its closing phrase about an odd coincidence seems to hang loose. The question rewards naming the subject of each sentence and checking that every added phrase belongs to it.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   The opening phrase of sentence 2, “Leaving approximately 73,000 residents without electricity,” has no word to modify; it sounds acceptable because sentence 1’s power outage supplies the missing subject. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The error is not named, and three sentences hold features that invite doubt: sentence 1’s date and place names, sentence 3’s dash and exclamation point, sentence 4’s two set-off phrases. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Take the sentences one at a time: name the subject and main verb, ask what each opening or added phrase describes, and check whether each mark of punctuation has a job.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Suspects the long opening date or the string of place names, though sentence 1 has a clear subject and verb and its introductory phrase is correctly punctuated.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Treats the dash and the exclamation point as errors because they look informal, though the dash correctly sets off “on the exact same day” and the sentence is complete.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly checks what each phrase describes but decides “an odd coincidence to say the least” dangles, though it correctly sums up the whole clause before it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 3 announces itself: tourism has nothing to do with brick. The second deletion is the trap, because sentence 14 sits after a sentence about factories employing the region’s population and looks like a continuation. Students who reject population as a topic often delete sentence 8 instead, which measures a cause the passage names, and students who judge by sound cut the general “boom times eventually end,” which turns the passage toward the industry’s decline.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   Sentences 8 and 14 are both population statistics; what separates them is that sentence 8 measures the “surging population” sentence 7 names as a cause, while the Valley’s growth in sentence 14 explains nothing. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Each kept sentence earns its place by its links: sentence 18 turns from boom to decline, sentence 23 echoes the landmarks of sentences 1–2, and sentence 14 merely follows sentence 13’s “region’s population.” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

3. Much to keep track of minor Working it out

   Five tiles, one from each paragraph, are judged against both their paragraph and the whole passage, and both picks must be right, so two relevance tests run side by side. (Sweller, 1988; Carpenter, Just & Shell, 1990)

Strategy: Sum up the passage’s topic in one phrase, then read each of the five sentences in its paragraph and ask whether removing it would leave a gap in the ideas around it; delete only sentences that leave none.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.
• Off the point: Adds or keeps something that does not support the paragraph's or the passage's focus, or an introduction or conclusion that misses the main point.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Sees a population figure in a passage about bricks and cuts it, missing that sentence 7 names “surging population” as a cause of demand and sentence 8 measures it.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Hears “boom times eventually end” as a cliché that adds nothing, though sentence 18 opens the fourth paragraph and turns the passage from the industry’s growth to its decline.

• E Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Thinks sentence 23 only repeats the conclusion around it, though it ties the brickmakers’ output back to the famous buildings of sentences 1–2.

• C Off the point (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Left unchosen by students who link it to factories that “employed much of the region’s population,” though the paragraph is about the factories’ output, not the Valley’s growth.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation quotes sentence 14 as “Population growth in the Hudson River Valley after the mid 1800s was substantial.” The passage and the tile say “mid-1800s,” so the site now quotes it that way.
• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation says “The information in sentence 14 comparing population growth rates between the region and New York City are not needed.” The subject is “information,” so the site now says “is not needed.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The error is in the first sentence, but it hides behind a comma that sounds like an ordinary pause, while the later spots carry features that look riskier: a transition word, a clause beginning “much of which,” the phrase “in fact.” Students who test each spot for a complete sentence on both sides find the splice at once. Those who look for a revision that merely sounds polished are drawn to the semicolon, which is correct but fixes nothing.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   The comma after “continents” joins two complete sentences, and because “at one time” sounds like an introductory phrase continuing the thought, the splice reads as a natural pause. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each revision changes only punctuation at one underlined spot, and the semicolon one is correct English, so students must ask whether each spot was wrong to begin with, not only whether the change looks right. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The paragraph’s sentences are long, with the appositive “known as Pangaea” and the clause “much of which were,” whose odd-sounding verb draws suspicion to a spot that is correctly punctuated. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: At each underlined spot, read the words on both sides and ask whether each side could stand as a sentence, then pick the revision that leaves every sentence correctly joined or separated.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.
• Fragment or run-on: Creates or keeps a sentence fragment, a run-on sentence or a comma splice.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Knows a semicolon can join two clauses before “additionally” and picks that tidy-looking change, though the period it replaces was already correct and the comma splice up front remains.

• C Fragment or run-on (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Treats the long second sentence as a run-on and splits it after “Panthalassa,” leaving “Much of which were in Earth’s Southern Hemisphere” as a fragment with no main clause.

• D Fragment or run-on (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Thinks “in fact” belongs inside the sentence before it, set off by commas, which joins two complete sentences with only a comma and creates the error the paragraph already has.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C says a period after “Panthalassa” would separate the dependent clause “much of which were in Earth’s Southern Hemisphere” “from its subject: ‘ocean waters called Panthalassa.’” The clause has a subject of its own, “much”; “ocean waters called Panthalassa” is its antecedent, the noun phrase that “which” refers to. The explanation also calls the clause “an adjective for ‘ocean waters’”; a clause is not an adjective but an adjective (relative) clause, which modifies the noun. The site now says “from its antecedent” and “an adjective clause that modifies ‘ocean waters.’” The reasoning and the answer, A, are unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph's only real errors sit at the end of its longest sentence, where a plural noun pair just before the faulty verb hides the mismatch. Students who do not hear “allow” as wrong start doubting correct marks instead, such as the colon before an embedded question or the comma after “To start with.” Every wrong pair also changes a verb or pronoun that already agrees, so reading each edit back into its sentence rules those pairs out.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   In sentence 4 the plural pair “texture and flavor” sits just before “and allow,” so the verb sounds right, but it belongs to “which,” the warmer serving, and must match “enhances.” (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   Each pair proposes two edits in one sentence, eight in all, and a pair is right only if both of its edits fix real errors, so every edit has to be tried in place. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Sentence 4 hangs a which-clause with two verbs onto the main clause, and the comma before “and allow” splits that clause's compound predicate in a way few students hear as wrong. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Before reading the choices, find each verb's true subject and test every marked comma yourself; then look for the choice whose two edits both fix errors you found.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.
• Agreement: A verb that does not agree with its subject, or a pronoun that does not agree with the word it stands for.
• Punctuation: A comma, semicolon, colon, dash or apostrophe used where it does not belong, or missing where it does.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Agreement (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Hears “the two” as the subject and wants “are,” and distrusts a colon before a question, though “the difference” is singular and the colon is correct.

• B Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Believes a short opener like “To start with” needs no comma and accepts “they are,” though the pronoun stands for the singular “butterfat content.”

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks edits to a sentence that is already correct, unbalancing the commas around the which-clause and giving the singular “mixing process” a plural verb.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Sentence 11 is camouflaged: it starts with a linking word, and a reader can argue that students who take longer to finish cost the state more. The paragraph, though, is about funding and taxes, and sentence 11 turns to why students switch majors or work. Students who cut sentence 13 sense a move toward solutions, but it still voices the critics, and the question rewards checking that each other sentence advances their case.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentence 11 opens with “Additionally,” and sentence 12's “these circumstances” can be read as gathering it in, so the stray sentence looks attached to the critics' argument. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Because sentence 11 can be defended, the answer comes mainly from confirming that sentences 10, 12 and 13 each carry the critics' case, which means testing every listed sentence. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: State the critics' argument in a few words, then check whether each listed sentence adds a link to that argument or turns aside to a different issue.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Cuts sentence 10 as a loose prediction, though more students needing more funds is the link between state funding in sentence 9 and the critics' fear of higher taxes.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Removes sentence 12 as mere opinion, though it states the critics' conclusion, higher taxes or lower quality, which the whole paragraph builds toward.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Senses a turn when the critics propose “narrower college-affordability efforts,” but sentence 13 still reports what “They think,” completing their case rather than leaving it.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The faulty sentence is easy to understand, because the reader supplies the link between New Jersey and the thirty-five seasons without noticing the clause is in the wrong place. Students who go by sound skip it and suspect a busier sentence instead, most often the first, with its parentheses and a “who” that refers to a team. The question rewards asking, for each describing clause, which word it actually sits beside.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   Sentence 2’s “where the team played for thirty-five seasons” follows “financial troubles,” not “New Jersey,” but readers silently attach it to the state, so the misplaced clause does not sound wrong. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The stem names no kind of error, and every sentence carries a describing clause or phrase, from “who played” to “including two appearances” to a second “where” clause, so all four must be tested. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Sentence 1 runs 31 words with two abbreviations in parentheses and a “who” clause, which makes a correct sentence look like the likeliest home for an error. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: In each sentence, find every describing clause or phrase and the word just before it. Ask whether the clause can logically describe that word; a mismatch marks the sentence to revise.

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Believes “who” cannot refer to a team, or distrusts the long sentence with two abbreviations, though “who played in the Long Island area” correctly describes the New York Nets.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Takes “including two appearances in the NBA finals” for a fragment tacked on with a comma, though the phrase correctly adds detail to “sixteen playoff appearances.”

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Hears the shift from “returned” to “now plays” as a tense error, though “now” marks the present, and this “where” clause sits right after New York, the place it describes.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The sentence to delete is the only one in the paragraph that mentions volunteering, so students who test each sentence against the essay’s topic keep it and cut one of the others. The paragraph’s point is narrower: sentence 5 says volunteering “may sound impossible” for many students, and sentences 6, 8 and 9 list what already fills their schedules. Sentence 7 is loosely related, which is why the stem asks for the least relevant sentence rather than an irrelevant one.

1. How sentences fit together moderate Working it out

   Sentences 6, 8 and 9 list the commitments that already fill students’ time, schoolwork, activities, family and jobs, while sentence 7 turns to what volunteering itself demands and breaks that list. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Every candidate touches on students’ busy lives, and sentence 7 is the only one that mentions volunteering, so each must be tested against the paragraph’s exact point rather than the essay’s topic. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Say in a few words what sentences 5 and 10 tell you the paragraph is about. Then test each listed sentence: does it add to that point, or does it shift to a different one?

Traps

• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Cuts sentence 6 because schoolwork says nothing about volunteering, judging by the essay’s topic word, though schoolwork is the first commitment on the paragraph’s list.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats extracurricular activities as a separate subject, though sentence 8 adds another after-school demand to the list explaining why volunteering seems impossible.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Senses that the paragraph lists school pressures and cuts family obligations and part-time jobs as outside school, missing that “too” adds them to the same list of demands.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph holds two errors of different kinds, an unclosed “who” clause and a slip into present tense, and the other two proposed edits change text that is already correct. Students who catch the tense shift but not the comma are left between two pairs, and many then delete the sound comma after the opening “When” clause. The question rewards finding both errors in the paragraph before reading the pairs.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   The “who owned a cleaning product company” clause opens with a comma but never closes, and sentence 2 still reads smoothly aloud, so the missing comma after “company” is easy to miss. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   The right pair and the pair that deletes the comma after “homes” share the “becomes” to “became” fix, so only the comma edit, after “company” or after “homes”, tells them apart. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four pairs draw on four possible edits in four sentences, so each edit has to be judged on its own and a pair accepted only when both are needed. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Find the errors yourself before looking at the pairs: check whether each comma is needed or missing, and check that each verb's tense fits when its event happened.

Traps

• Punctuation: A comma, semicolon, colon, dash or apostrophe used where it does not belong, or missing where it does.
• Verb tense or form: The wrong tense, an inconsistent shift of tense, or a wrong verb form.
• Fixes what isn't broken: Changes a part of the sentence that was already correct, while the real error stays; or, where the question asks which sentence has an error or should go, picks one that is correct and belongs.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Punctuation (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Gets the “becomes” to “became” fix but, missing the unclosed “who” clause in sentence 2, deletes the comma that correctly ends the opening clause of sentence 1.

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Changes two correct parts, deleting the comma after an opening clause and adding a needless past perfect, while both real errors in sentences 2 and 3 stay.

• D Verb tense or form (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Adds the needed comma after “company” but thinks the later event needs “had remarketed”, missing the real tense error, the present-tense “becomes” in sentence 3.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The faulty sentence is the first one and the smoothest-sounding, because the mind supplies the missing volunteers who walk the dogs. Students who judge by ear pass over it and then flag a correct sentence that merely sounds busy. The question rewards asking, for every opening phrase, which noun it actually attaches to.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong major Working it out

   Sentence 1's opening list, “Walking dogs, cleaning kennels, hand-feeding newborn kittens”, grammatically describes “the animal shelter”, an error that sounds natural because readers know volunteers will do those tasks. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked moderate Choosing the answer

   The stem names no kind of error, so all four sentences must be checked, and sentences 2, 3 and 4 each contain a long phrase that could look misplaced. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Every sentence carries a lengthy modifier, from the interrupting “especially those who aspire to care for and protect animals” to the closing definition of empathy, so the faulty one does not stand out. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: In each sentence, find every descriptive phrase and ask which noun sits next to it. Any phrase placed beside a noun it cannot logically describe marks the sentence to revise.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Flags the interruption “especially those who aspire to care for and protect animals” as an error, though it correctly describes “young people” and the sentence is complete.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Suspects the opening phrase “In addition to hands-on training with animal care” dangles like sentence 1's, but it leads straight into “volunteers”, who receive the training.

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Picks the “which is the awareness and understanding of the feelings of others” clause as misplaced, though it sits right after “empathy”, the word it defines.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The paragraph drifts gradually, which makes this harder than a plain hunt for the odd sentence out. The Channel Tunnel arrives in sentence 15 as a comparison that still concerns the Gotthard tunnel's importance, and only the next sentence leaves the Gotthard tunnel behind entirely. Students who cut at the first mention of the other tunnel lose the point, so it pays to ask which sentence says nothing about the Gotthard tunnel or the travel it speeds up.

1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

   Sentence 15 is the first to mention the Channel Tunnel, so it looks like the shift, but it still compares that tunnel with the Gotthard; sentence 16 is wholly about car trains under the Channel. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

2. How sentences fit together minor Working it out

   The paragraph's focus, the faster travel the Gotthard tunnel will bring, has to be held while each of sentences 13 through 16 is tested against it. (Halliday & Hasan, 1976)

Strategy: State the paragraph's topic in a few words, then check each listed sentence against it. The sentence to cut is the one that talks about something other than that topic.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Cuts sentence 13 as a vague restatement, but “It will be faster for people to travel between northern and southern Europe” is the paragraph's central claim.

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Treats the Zurich-to-Milan example as a side detail, though the hour saved between those cities is concrete proof of the faster travel the paragraph promises.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Rightly senses the Channel Tunnel is a detour but cuts the comparison that still concerns the Gotthard tunnel, leaving in sentence 16, which is only about car-carrying trains.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Students who miss this one usually look for the error in the wrong place: the phrases “including Muhammad Ali’s boxing gloves” and “written in 1863” look suspicious, while the real splice hides behind the long museum name. The question rewards checking each spot for a subject and verb on both sides of its punctuation. Two choices offer the same “, and the” fix, so knowing the fix is not enough without finding where it belongs.

1. A rule that doesn't sound wrong moderate Working it out

   The error is a comma splice after “Institution,” where a comma alone joins two complete clauses, and a comma sounds like a natural pause when the sentence is read aloud. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The eight-word museum name stretches the first clause, so by the time “the museum is already” arrives, it reads like a continuation rather than a new subject and verb. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   The four underlined spots fall in four different sentences, and each has to be tested for whether a complete sentence sits on both sides of its punctuation. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

Strategy: Check each sentence for a subject and main verb and count its complete thoughts, then decide whether the spot each choice changes actually breaks a rule before picking a fix.

The wrong answers, classified

• B Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Recognizes “, and the” as the usual run-on fix but applies it where a period already separates two complete, correctly punctuated sentences.

• C Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Believes a phrase opening with “including” after a comma is a fragment, so turns it into a which-clause, though the phrase already attaches correctly to “objects.”

• D Fixes what isn't broken (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Thinks “written in 1863” cannot describe the copy without “which was,” though the sentence already has its verb “is” and the phrase is correctly set off.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook says the correct revision “adds the word ‘and’ before the comma.” In “Institution, and the,” the word “and” comes after the comma, so the site now says “after the comma.”

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it