Practice Test

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

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 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 makes sense on a first reading, which is exactly why its error slips past students who edit by ear. Asking who is promoting the club exposes it and removes both rewrites that keep the bake sale as the subject, however neatly they are punctuated. What is left is a judgment of style, and the smoother rewrite keeps the subject and verb together instead of interrupting them with two phrases.

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

   “To promote their club” has to describe whatever comes right after its comma, and that is “a bake sale”; the meaning is so plain that few students notice the sale doing the promoting. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The original is passive, “a bake sale will be sponsored by members of the debate team,” which places the people who act after the verb, far from the phrase that should describe them. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Each rewrite rearranges the opening phrase, the time phrase and the main clause, so each has to be read through to see what follows “To promote their club” and whether anything splits a subject from its verb. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

4. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   Two rewrites make the team members the subject of “will sponsor” with identical words; they part only on where the two phrases go, at the edges of the sentence or wedged between subject and verb. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Ask who is really doing the promoting, then read each rewrite aloud in full, checking which words follow the opening phrase and whether the sentence reads smoothly from start to finish.

Traps

• Misplaced modifier: A describing word or phrase that attaches to the wrong word, or to nothing in the sentence.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Moves “on Wednesday” ahead of the bake sale as if the time phrase were the misplaced part, but the sentence stays passive and the sale is still what “To promote their club” describes.

• B Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is drawn by the tidy commas around both fronted phrases, yet “a bake sale” still comes straight after them, so the sale remains the thing promoting the club.

• D Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Rightly makes “Members of the debate team” the subject but parks “on Wednesday to promote their club” between it and “will sponsor,” a clumsy break the smoother rewrite avoids.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

Every choice makes the same kind of change, so the question comes down to telling one real comma splice from three commas doing legitimate work. The most dangerous spot is after “race,” where a subject and verb sit on both sides of the comma, just as at the real error, and only the word “Once” marks the first part as dependent. Students who test each side for a complete thought, not just for a subject and a verb, find the splice in the opening sentence quickly.

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

   The run-on hides behind the short phrase “at that time,” which makes the comma after “name” sound like an ordinary pause; only checking that each side can stand alone exposes the comma splice. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four revisions swap a comma for a period, so every underlined spot needs the same test: could the words before it and the words after it each stand as a sentence? (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The three correct commas guard three different structures, an opening “Once” clause, a participial phrase beginning with “paving” and an appositive after “261,” and each has to be recognized as unable to stand alone. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: At each underlined comma, read the words before it and the words after it as separate pieces and ask whether each could stand alone as a sentence; that shows where a period belongs.

Traps

• Fragment or run-on: Creates or keeps a sentence fragment, a run-on sentence or a comma splice.

The wrong answers, classified

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: strong

  Finds a subject and verb on both sides of the comma after “race” and calls it a splice, missing that “Once” makes the first part a dependent clause that cannot stand alone.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

  Treats the long third sentence as a run-on and ends it after “hours,” leaving “Paving the way for the official rule change” as a fragment with no subject or main verb.

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

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Spots the subject and verb “she had worn” after the comma following “261,” but they sit inside a phrase that renames the number, so the new sentence would be a fragment.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Stem and explanation: The handbook spells the runner’s name “Katherine Switzer” in the paragraph and twice in the explanation. She is Kathrine Switzer, who entered the 1967 Boston Marathon as “K. V. Switzer,” so the site now spells her name that way, in the question’s title too. No answer depends on the spelling.
• Explanation: The DOE’s explanation of Option C calls “paving the way for the official rule change that allowed for the inclusion of women” a dependent clause, and on that basis calls the sentence a complex sentence. The words have no subject or finite verb of their own: they are a participial phrase, which the site now calls them, and the site no longer calls the sentence complex for that reason. Its explanation of Option D calls “the same number she had worn in that first run in 1967” a modifying clause; it is an appositive phrase, a noun phrase that renames “number 261,” and the site now says so. Neither phrase can stand alone as a sentence, so Options C and D are still wrong, and the answer, Option A, is unchanged.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Why it is hard

The faulty sentence causes no confusion in reading, because the mind ties the thirty-five seasons to New Jersey rather than to the financial troubles the clause actually follows. Students who judge by sound pass over it and hunt through the busier sentences, above all the first, which in this printing also has no comma after “In 1976.” What the question rewards is asking, clause by clause, which word each describing clause sits beside.

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

   In sentence 2, “where the Nets played for thirty-five seasons” lands after “financial troubles,” yet the ear quietly joins it to New Jersey, so the misplaced clause reads as natural English. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   Nothing in the stem says what kind of error to look for, and every sentence sets off a phrase or clause with commas, from the “who” clause to the “including” phrase to “after a change in ownership.” (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

3. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   Sentence 1 runs 31 words, with two abbreviations in parentheses, a “who” clause and no comma after the opening date, so a correct sentence looks like the likeliest place for a fault. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

Strategy: Work through all four sentences; for each phrase or clause set off by a comma, decide which noun it should describe and check that the two are side by 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

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: strong

  Believes “who” cannot stand for a team, or wants a comma after the date “In 1976,” though the short opening phrase and the clause describing the New York Nets are both correct.

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

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: weak

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

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

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: moderate

  Is put off by the stacked opening “Then in 2012, after a change in ownership,” or by the unpunctuated team name at the end, though the sentence is built correctly as it stands.

What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why

• Explanation: The handbook’s explanation calls two clauses phrases and two phrases clauses. It calls “where the Nets played for thirty-five seasons” a phrase three times (Option B) and “who played in the Long Island area at the time” a modifying phrase (Option A). Each has a subject and a verb of its own (“the Nets played,” “who played”), so each is a clause, and the site now calls them clauses. It calls “including two appearances in the NBA finals” (Option C) and “after a change in ownership” (Option D) nonrestrictive clauses. Neither has a subject or a verb of its own, so each is a phrase (the second a prepositional phrase), as the explanations’ own next sentences (“The phrase is set off…”) say, and the site now says “nonrestrictive phrase.” The DOE’s later printing of this question uses the same terms. The reasoning and the answer, sentence 2, are unchanged.

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

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

Why it is hard

The original sentence is easy to understand, which is exactly why its dangling modifier slips past students who judge by sound. Rewrites that only move “on Wednesday” keep the passive voice and the error, so asking who is doing the promoting rules them out at once. Among the rewrites that put the team members first, the remaining decision is about smoothness: whether a phrase should sit between the subject and its verb.

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

   “To promote their club” has no logical doer in the original, since a bake sale cannot promote anything, but the meaning is so clear that the dangling modifier is hard to hear. (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

2. Complex sentences minor Understanding the question

   The passive “will be sponsored by members of the debate team” pushes the real actors to the end, which is why the opening phrase lands on “a bake sale.” (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)

3. Every choice must be checked minor Choosing the answer

   All four rewrites shuffle the same three phrases, so each must be read whole to see which noun follows the opening phrase and whether the main clause is interrupted. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)

4. A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer

   The interrupted rewrite uses the same words as the right one and also makes the team members the subject; only where “on Wednesday to promote their club” sits, between subject and verb, separates them. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

Strategy: Ask who is actually promoting the club, then read each rewrite to see which words the to-phrase attaches to and how smoothly the whole sentence reads.

Traps

• Misplaced modifier: A describing word or phrase that attaches to the wrong word, or to nothing in the sentence.

The wrong answers, classified

• A Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a misconception Expected pull: moderate

  Moves “on Wednesday” as if the time phrase were the problem and keeps the passive voice, so “To promote their club” still describes the bake sale.

• B Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals a surface strategy Expected pull: weak

  Shuffles both phrases to the front without a comma between them, yet “a bake sale” still follows, so the club-promoting phrase still describes the sale.

• D Misplaced modifier (Connors & Lunsford, 1988)

  Reveals partial knowledge Expected pull: moderate

  Correctly makes “Members of the debate team” the subject but misplaces “on Wednesday to promote their club” between subject and verb, an awkward interruption the best revision avoids.

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it