1
The correct choice must feature a verb that agrees with the plural noun costs and refers to an action completed
last year (past tense). The verb amounts in A and B fulfills neither condition, and amounts to a sum in A is
redundant. The same redundancy occurs in E, and the construction a lower sum than is awkward and
imprecise in the context of the sentence. In D, the adjective lower is erroneously used in place of the noun less
as object of the preposition to. Choice C is best
2
Choice A is best. In B, the participle staging inappropriately expresses ongoing rather than completed action,
and the prepositional phrase containing this participle (with... it) is unidiomatic. Likewise, C uses the participle
being inappropriately. In D, the use of Excepting in place of the preposition Except for is unidiomatic. Choice E
is awkward and wordy.
3
In A, lack is modified by a wordy and awkward construction, to such a large degree as to make it difficult to.
B is similarly flawed, and to a large enough degree that is unidiomatic. C is ungrammatical because it uses
lack as a noun rather than as a verb: the phrase beginning Students... becomes a dangling element, and them
refers illogically to skills rather than students. Additionally, A, B, and C fail to use one or both of the "-ing" forms
are lacking and becoming; these forms are preferable to lack and becomes in describing progressive and
ongoing conditions. D uses the "-ing" forms, but so much... as to be difficult to absorb is an awkward and
unidiomatic verbal modifier. Choice E is best.
4
The best answer here must qualify the statement made in the main clause. The diet... was largely vegetarian:
it cannot be treated as part of the list of vegetarian foods. In other words, the best answer must logically and
grammatically attach to the main clause when the list is omitted. Choice A fails this test:
The diet. . . was largely vegetarian, and meat rarely. D fails also, because it lacks a function word such as
with to link it to the main clause. The wording of choice B is imprecise and ambiguous--for example, it could
mean that meat was scarce, or that it was not well done or medium. Choice C is unidiomatic. Clearly phrased,
grammatically linked, and idiomatically sound, choice E is best.
5
The idiomatic form for this type of comparison is as much as. Thus, choice A is best. The phrase so much as is
used unidiomatically in choices B and C; so much as is considered idiomatic if it is preceded by a negative, as
in "She left not so much as a trace." In choices C, D, and E, even is misplaced so that it no longer clearly
modifies the strongest businesses. Moreover, the use of that rather than as is unidiomatic in choices D and E.
6
The best answer will complete the phrase could mean less lending with a construction that is parallel to less
lending. Here less is an adjective modifying lending, which functions as a noun in naming a banking activity. C,
the best choice, parallels this adjective + noun construction with increased [adjective] pressure [noun]. Choice
A violates parallelism by introducing a phrase in place of the adjective + noun construction. Choices D and E
also fail to parallel the adjective + noun construction. In choice B, the definite article the needlessly suggests
that some previously mentioned type of pressure is being referred to, and increasing implies without warrant
that the increase has been continuing for some indefinite period of time, not that it occurs as a consequence of
the bank's decision.
7
The adjective little modifies "mass nouns" (e.g., water), which refer to some undifferentiated quantity; the
adjective few modifies "count nouns" (e.g., services), which refer to groups made up of distinct members that
can be considered individually. Hence, choices A, B, and D are incorrect because little cannot properly modify
services. Also, since water and services are being discussed as a pair, they should logically be treated as a
compound subject requiring a plural verb; thus, the singular verbs exists (in B and C) and is (in D) are wrong.
Choice E is best: the plural verb are is used, and few correctly modifies services.
8
Choice A is best: the singular pronoun its agrees in number with the singular noun referent retailer; the past
perfect verb form had been is used appropriately to refer to action completed prior to the action of the simple
past tense said', and the adjective recent correctly modifies the noun phrase extended sales slump. The
adverb recently in choices B and C distorts the meaning of the sentence by illogically suggesting that what was
recent was only the extension of the slump, and not the slump itself. In choices D and E, the plural pronoun their
does not agree with the singular noun retailer.
9
Choice A is best. In choice B, should is illogical after requires, or at least unnecessary, and so is better omitted;
in choices B and E, job does not agree in number with jobs; and in choices B, D, and E, the wording illogically
describes the comparable skills rather than the jobs as being "usually held by men." Choices C, D, and E
produce the ungrammatical construction requires of... employers to pay, in which of makes the phrase
incorrect. In C, the use of in rather than for is unidiomatic, and jobs of comparable skill confusedly suggests
that the jobs rather than the workers possess the skills. In D, the phrase beginning regardless ... is awkward
and wordy in addition to being illogical.
10
In choices A, B, and D, the combined use of annual and a year is redundant. Choices A, D, and E are awkward
and confused because other constructions intrude within the phrase cost... of illiteracy: for greatest clarity,
cost should be followed immediately by a phrase (e.g., of illiteracy ) that identifies the nature of the cost.
Choice E is particularly garbled in reversing cause and effect, saying that it is lost output and revenues rather
than illiteracy that costs the United States over $20 billion a year. Choice B is wordy and awkward, and idiom
requires in rather than because of to introduce a phrase identifying the constituents of the $20 billion loss.
Concise, logically worded, and idiomatic, choice C is best.
11
In English it is idiomatic usage to credit someone with having done something. Hence, only choice B, the best
answer, is idiomatic. The verb credited would have to be changed to regarded for choices A or D to be idiomatic,
to believed for choice C to be idiomatic, and to given credit for choice E to be idiomatic.
12
Choice D, the best answer, uses the preposition than to compare two clearly specified and grammatically
parallel terms, the cars the manufacturers hope to develop and those at present on the road. In A, the phrase
more gasoline-efficient ... than presently on the road does not identify the second term of the comparison. In
B, the misuse of modifying phrases produces an ambiguous and awkward statement: even more
gasoline-efficient cars could refer either to more cars that are efficient or to cars that are more efficient.
Choices B, C, and E all use research for [verb] where the idiom requires research to [verb]. In addition, C
awkwardly separates even from more, and C and E again fail to indicate the second term of the comparison.
13
Choices A, B, and C use have ... saw where have ... seen is required. Choices A, B, and E awkwardly separate
the relative clause beginning whose arms and legs ... from monkeys, the noun it modifies. Choices A and E
also confusingly use the present tense hang and the present perfect have hung, respectively; neither verb
conveys clearly that, at the time the monkeys were spotted sleeping, their arms and legs were hanging in the
manner described. Choice D, the best answer, not only forms a correct and clear sentence by supplying the
present perfect verb have ... seen, but also solves the problem of the whose ... clause by using the
appropriately placed adverbial phrase with arms and legs hanging... to modify sleeping.
14
Choice E, the best answer, states that although the canoe could transport cargo of considerable weight, it was
light: a canoe . . . which could carry . . . yet was . . . light.... Here, the conjunction yet is appropriately and
correctly used to link two verb phrases. Choices A and B do not use yet with a verb parallel to could carry and
thus fail to express this contrast. Furthermore, both place adjectival constructions after baggage, illogically
stating that the eight hundred pounds of baggage, rather than the canoe, was light. Choice C supplies yet but
ungrammatically uses the participle being where was is required. Similarly, D omits the necessary verb after
and; and here again, the use of and rather than yet fails to express the contrast.
15
Choice B, the best answer, correctly uses the construction between x and y to describe the conflict between two
opposing groups. Choices A and C each use the ungrammatical between x with y. Choices D and E incorrectly
use the preposition among in place of between: among is used to describe the relationship of more than two
elements, as in "the tension among residents"; between is generally used to describe the relationship of two
entities. Choice E also repeats the with error.
16
Choice E, the best answer, correctly uses the construction is better served by x than by y and supplies the
proper singular pronoun, it, to refer to religion. Choices A and B complete the construction beginning better
served by x... unidiomatically, with instead of by y and rather than y. Also in B, them does not agree with its
logical referent, religion. Choice C repeats the unidiomatic instead construction; in addition, such is preferable
to these for presenting examples or instances. Choice D repeats the errors with rather than and them.
17
Choice D, the best answer, correctly uses an infinitive to connect the verb claims with the firm's assertion:
claims to be able ... to assess .... All of the other choices use ungrammatical or unclear constructions after
claims. Choices A and B present clauses that should be introduced by "claims that." In A, placing that after
sample rather than after claims produces the unintended statement that the claim itself is made on the basis of
a single one-page writing sample. Also, in B, the ability of assessing is unidiomatic. Choice C repeats this
second fault and uses the unidiomatic claims the ability. Choice E uses the ungrammatical claims being able
to assess.
18
Choice B, the best answer, correctly uses the construction more fragile ... than to compare the economic bases
of private Black colleges with those of most predominantly White colleges. Choice A fails to supply a phrase
like those of, thus illogically comparing the Black colleges' economic bases to predominantly White colleges.
Similarly, in C than is so of does not clearly identify the second term of the comparison and is unnecessarily
wordy. Like A, D makes an illogical comparison between bases and colleges, and both D and E use the
unidiomatic and redundant more ... compared to.
19
Choice B, the best answer, uses clear and concise phrasing to state that it is the effects of drug and alcohol
abuse that already cost business the sum mentioned. In A, to business is awkwardly and confusingly
inserted between cost and the prepositional phrase that modifies it, and are already a cost to business is
wordy and awkward compared to cost business. In C, already with business costs of... is awkward and
unclear, failing to specify that those prior effects generate the cost. Choices D and E produce faulty
constructions with the phrase significant in compounding, which cannot grammatically modify the verb form is
growing.
20
Choice A, the best answer, correctly supplies the past tense verbs established and used to describe two
actions performed in 1456; also, it idiomatically employs the phrase used the Acropolis as a fortress, in which
used as means "employed in the capacity of." Choices B and C incorrectly replace as wiui like. Furthermore, in
C, when he had established a mosque distorts the intended meaning by stating that the first action was
completed before the second was begun. Similarly, in D, had established... using states that Mohammed had
already performed the actions before capturing Athens; and in E, establishing and using modify Athens, thus
producing an absurd statement. In addition, D includes the unidiomatic construction "using x to be y."
21
Choice E is best: the infinitive to prepare follows the verb ordered, producing the grammatical and idiomatic
sequence x ordered y to do z. By contrast, should prepare in A and would do in B produce ungrammatical
sequences: x ordered y should/ would do z. In C, preparing . . . communities functions as a participial
phrase modifying citizens rather than as a verb phrase describing what the citizens were ordered to do. In D,
the construction ordered panels of common citizens the preparing is unidiomatic.
22
Choice A is best: the appositive terms character and composition, both singular, agree in number; both also
agree with the singular possessive pronoun its. In all the other choices, this three-way agreement in number is
violated.
23
The focus here is on the phrases x and y in the construction shifting environmental problems from x to y. In
choice C, the best answer, x and y are parallel not only grammatically but also logically: in each phrase, an
environmental problem (pollution) affects a substance (water, air) and is caused by an agent (landfills,
incinerators). In choice A the noun landfills (agent) is not grammatically or logically parallel with the verb
phrase polluting the air (environmental problem); in B, landfills is not logically parallel with air (substance
affected). The terms pollution (problem) in D and water (substance) in E are not logically parallel with
incinerators (agent).
24
In choices A and B, after when is unidiomatic: one word or the other can be used to establish temporal
sequence, but not both together. In D, the phrase at the time after is awkward and temporally confusing;
moreover, the present tense develops is used incorrectly to describe action completed in the past. In E, the
construction after there being... support is ungrammatical. Choice C, grammatical and idiomatic, is the best
answer.
25
Choice D, the best answer, correctly employs the correlative construction not only x but also y, where x and y
are grammatically parallel and where both x and y (damage and destroy) apply to young plants. Choices A,
(not only ... and also), B (not only ... as well as), and C (not only ... but they also) violate the not only ... but
also paradigm. Moreover, B contains terms (blow... damaging) that are not parallel. In C and E, damage is
used not as a verb with young plants as its direct object but as a noun receiving the action of cause;
consequently, these choices fail to state explicitly that the damage is done to young plants. E also violates
parallelism (not only blow ... but also causing).
26
Choice B, the best answer, correctly and idiomatically uses the preposition like to introduce a comparison that is
expressed , in a prepositional phrase. In A, as is used unidiomatically; in j comparison, as is properly employed
as a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause. Choices C, D, and E are all faulty because the verb do
suggests that the migrating pearls are presented as a real phenomenon, not as a figurative illustration. Also, in D,
like is used ungrammatically to introduce a subordinate clause (pearls do ...); and in E, the phrase some other
one, substituted for another, is awkward and wordy.
27
In choice A, the phrase assigned by them modifies the adjacent noun, paychecks: the sentence implies that
paychecks, rather than employees, work at the United Nations. In C, the phrase having been assigned... is
uncertain in reference, making the sentence unclear. By using in place of instead of/or, j choices D and E create
the unidiomatic and redundant construction substitutes x in place of y. Moreover, D, aside from being wordy, is
unclear because the pronoun them has no unambiguous antecedent; and in E, their employees to have been
assigned by them is wordy and awkward. Choice B, the best answer, properly uses the phrase who have been
assigned... to the United Nations to modify employees.
28
Choice E, the best answer, clearly and grammatically expresses the idea that two costly procedures, irrigation
and the application of... fertilizer, were required by earlier high-yielding varieties of rice. In A, the placement
of by earlier... varieties immediately after application of fertilizer suggests that the varieties applied the
fertilizer. In B and D, the phrase application of... fertilizer and irrigation is ambiguous in meaning: it cannot be
clearly determined whether applying fertilizer and irrigating are a single operation or two distinct operations. In C,
only irrigation--not both irrigation and fertilization--is clearly associated with the earlier... varieties of rice.
29
In choice C, the best answer, do is correctly used in place of the full verb do sell; in this verb, do is a conjugated
form and sell is in the infinitive form, corresponding to its previous use in the sentence (in the phrase priced to
sell). In choice A, the omitted word is selling; in B, D, and E, it is sold. Neither of these forms corresponds
properly to to sell earlier in the sentence. Also, in E, the past perfect had been priced signifies that the wines
had been priced to sell before the prices were cut.
30
Choice A, the best answer, uses that appropriately to introduce a clause that describes the Supreme Court's
ruling; A also employs the idiomatic phrase restitution... for. In choice B, restitution... because of is not
idiomatic. The plural pronouns their in B and C and they' in D are confusing as references to counties,
especially since their refers to the Oneida in the phrase their ancestral lands. Choices C, D, and E each fail to
use that to introduce the clause that explains the Court's ruling; as a result, the phrasing in those choices is
awkward, unidiomatic, and imprecise.
31
In English, x [is] expected to y is idiomatic usage: expected for it to in choice A and expected that it should
in choice C are thus unidiomatic. Choice D awkwardly substitutes its rise for the pronoun it as the subject of
might have been expected; since it refers to inflation, the subject of the verb eased, it is preferable as the
subject of might have been expected, the verb form corresponding to eased. Choice E is needlessly wordy,
roundabout, and vague. Choice B is best.
32
The phrases equivalent to in A, the equivalent of in B, and equal to in C have too broad a range of meanings
to be used precisely here: that is, they can suggest more than merely numerical equality. Also, as quantitative
expressions, equivalent and equal often modify nouns referring to uncountable things, as in "an equivalent
amount of resistance" or "a volume of water equal to Lake Michigan." To establish numerical comparability
between groups with countable members, the phrase as many as is preferable. Choice D, however, uses this
phrase improperly in comparing eight million people to enrollment, not to other people. The comparison in E,
the best choice, is logical because people is understood as the subject of are enrolled.
33
In choices A, B, and C, the plural pronouns their and they have no plural noun for a logical referent. Since In
Holland modifies all of the sentence that follows, A states confusedly that Holland spends a percentage of its
gross national product on military defense in the United States. In C, the passive is spent is not parallel with
the active spends. Lack of parallelism in choice D produces an illogical comparison: the percentage that
Holland spends is said to exceed not the percentage that the United States spends but rather its total military
defense
spending. Parallel phrasing allows E, the best choice, to make a logical comparison between what Holland
spends and what the United States does [spend].
34
Choices A, B, and E can be faulted for using should in place of will to indicate future occurrences: should
carries the suggestion, especially unwarranted in this context, that the Canadian scientists are describing what
ought to happen. The phrase once in every nine years is needlessly wordy in B and C. Also, the language of C
implies more than can reasonably be maintained: i.e., that a meteorite will strike one person, and no one else,
exactly once during every nine-year period. Choice D is best: the phrasing is concise and free of unintended
suggestions, and the use of the indefinite article in a human being is appropriate for describing what is
expected to be true only on the average.
35
In choices A and C, it intrudes between the halves of the compound verb has moved... and [now] draws to
introduce a new grammatical subject, thereby creating a run-on sentence:
the inclusion of it requires a comma after classics to set off the new independent clause. The placement of now
is awkward in C, and the construction living abroad... and who is not parallel in C and D. Misplacement of
words creates ambiguity in E: for example, the positioning of both immediately before the phrase describing the
authors suggests that there are only two contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad. The logical word
placement and parallel phrasing of B, the best choice, resolve such confusions.
36
Choice A is best: is links the noun schistosomiasis with its modifier, debilitating, and so debilitating that
idiomatically introduces a clause that provides a further explanation of debilitating. Choices B, D, and E
produce awkward, wordy, imprecise, or unidiomatic phrases by substituting the noun debilitation for the
modifier debilitating. Choices B and D fail to introduce the explanatory clause with that, and C uses an
awkward and wordy construction in place of a that... clause. Finally, B, D, and E wrongly use economical
instead of economic to mean "pertaining to the economy."
37
Choices A and D illogically compare the median income to a family rather than to another median income.
Also, families would be preferable to a family in A, B, and D because the comparison is between groups of
families. In A and B, in which would be preferable to where, since where properly refers to location. Choices A
and E misplace only so that it seems to modify was employed rather than the husband. In B and E, o/is less
idiomatic than/or, and the plural pronoun those in E does not agree with the singular noun referent income. C,
the best choice, uses the singular pronoun that to stand for income, thus establishing a logical comparison.
38
In English, the idiom is requiring x toy or requiring that x y, with x as the noun subject and y the unconjugated
form of the verb. Choice E, the best answer, follows the first paradigm. Choice A is less concise and contains the
unnecessary should before retain, in B, the awkward shift to the passive construction makes workers the
subject of show, thus producing the unintended statement that older workers [rather than employers} are
required to show just cause for dismissal. Choices C and D are ungrammatical because the retaining and
retention function as nouns, which cannot be joined by or to the verb show: grammar requires that the
compound predicate consist of two verbs, retain... or show.
39
Choice A is best. All of the other choices present errors in coordination or parallelism and also confusingly
suggest that King's being a mystic and being guided... by omens... were separate matters. In addition, these
choices contain errors in grammar and idiom. Choice B ungrammatically uses and also to link the noun mystic
and the past participle guided. In choices C and D, that is required to introduce the clause x was a mystic if
that introduces the second clause, he was guided.... In choice E, to have been a mystic and that he guided...
are not parallel. Finally, B, D, and E use the unidiomatic both x as well as y instead of both x and y.
40
In choices A, B, and C, the singular verb is does not agree with values, the subject of the sentence. Choices B,
C, and D use awkward and wordy expressions. In B and D, the expression use as collateral to borrow against
to get through... awkwardly juxtaposes two infinitives and is unnecessarily redundant, since use as collateral
and borrow against have the same meaning. Choice C presents the wordy expression the collateral which is
borrowed against by farmers to get through..., in which the passive verb creates an awkward and confusing
construction. Choice E, the best answer, succinctly and clearly identifies the Declining values as the collateral
against which farmers borrow and correctly uses the plural verb are.
41
In A and B, the phrases beginning Unlike... and Besides... modify patients, the subject of the main clause; thus
A absurdly states that Unlike transplants ..., patients... must take ... drugs, and B that all patients except for
transplants... must take ... drugs. In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic
endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical. In E, the construction
Other than transplants..., all patients ... must take... drugs illogically suggests, as in B, that some patients
are transplants. Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a clause introduced by Unless to
describe the exception to the rule and a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic
attributed to all identical twins.
42
Choice D, the best answer, uses the grammatically correct expression demanded that it bring back, in which
demanded that it is followed by the subjunctive verb bring. Choice A incorrectly uses should bring rather than
bring: demanding that already conveys the idea of "should," and at any rate a modal auxiliary verb, such as
should or must, cannot grammatically follow the expression demanded that. Similarly, B and E use the
ungrammatical expression demanding/demanded it to. In C, the expression yielded to... customers and their
demand to bring... unnecessarily states that the company yielded to the customers as well as to their
demand. This expression also fails to specify that the company is expected to bring back the original formula.
43
Choice B, the best answer, correctly uses the construction mammals ... are a branch... rather than a type, in
which the terms compared by rather than are grammatically parallel nouns. Choices A and D fail to parallel
branch with another noun, instead following rather than or instead o/with the verb phrase developing
independently from.... In C, the expression a type whose development was independent of a common
ancestor states the opposite of the original point_that the type of mammal mentioned was thought to have
developed independently of the main stem of mammalian evolution, but still to have descended from a
common ancestor. Choice E repeats the error of C, further straying from the intended meaning by referring to
the type as a development.
44
In A, B, and C, the singular auxiliary verb has does not agree with the plural subject of the sentence, Efforts. In
addition, B and C are wordy; significantly reduced will suffice here. Choice E uses a similarly wordy expression
that changes the meaning of the sentence, stating not that the efforts have significantly reduced the gap but that
they failed to play a significant role in some already-existing reduction of several gaps. Choice D, the best
answer, is grammatically correct, clear, and concise.
45
When mandate is used as a verb to mean "make it mandatory,' it must be followed by that and a verb in the
subjunctive mood, as in A, the best answer: mandate that x be balanced. Choice B uses the ungrammatical
mandate x to be balanced. Choice C inappropriately uses the future indicative, will be, rather than the
subjunctive. Choices D and E use wordy and imprecise expressions in place of the verb mandate: neither have
a mandate for a balanced... budget nor have a mandate to balance the ... budget makes clear that the
requirement is made by the constitution. It is also unclear in D whether each year refers to the mandating or the
balancing.
46
Only C, the best choice, manages to convey the meaning of the sentence efficiently and idiomatically. Choices A
and D are plagued by awkwardness and wordiness. Choice A also introduces the unidiomatic phrase lack of
some other doctor. Choice B incorrectly uses a future-tense verb (will be) in the if clause; the if clause must
use the present tense if it is preceded, as here, by a result clause that uses a future-tense verb (e.g., will find).
Choice E introduces a dangling modifier: the lacking ... phrase cannot logically modify damage, the nearest
noun.
47
In E, the best choice, a modifying phrase begun by like immediately follows the name it modifies, Samuel
Sewall. E also uses the idiomatic construction viewed marriage as.... Choice A inserts an adverbial modifier, as
other... colonists, without the necessary did. It also uses the unidiomatic construction viewed marriage like ....
Both B and C use the unidiomatic construction viewed marriage to be .... C incorrectly places the adjective
phrase like other... colonists after the word arrangement, which it cannot logically modify. D offers a confusing
and awkward passive construction marriage to. Samuel Sewall... was viewed....
48
E, the best choice, is the only one that maintains grammatical parallelism by using an infinitive--to enforce--to
complete the construction either to approve ... or.... All of the other choices offer syntactic structures that are
not parallel to the infinitive phrase to approve. In addition, choices A, B, and C use plural pronouns (they and
their) that have no grammatical referents.
49
The properly completed sentence here must (1) use the proper form of the comparative conjunction, as fast as;
(2) enclose the parenthetical statement and... even faster than in commas; and (3) preserve parallel structure,
clarity of reference, and economy by using those to substitute for land values in the completed comparison. D,
the best choice, does all these things correctly. A and B use so unidiomatically in place of as. A and E omit the
comma needed after than and use the confusing and unparallel what they did instead of those. C omits the
second as needed in the comparative conjunction as fast as.
50
Choice B is best because it alone correctly handles the idiom to mistake x for y. Though choice D manages the
correct preposition, for, the phrase the moon as it was rising for is less efficient and precise than the phrasing
of choice B: since rising functions as a verb in D, the phrase for a massive... attack now seems to modify
rising rather than mistook. Choice C incorrectly uses mistook... to, and choices A and E incorrectly use
mistake ... as. Choice E also employs the nonidiomatic rise of the moon.
51
D, the best choice, deals successfully with four issues. It uses a present indicative verb form in the conditional
clause. If Dr. Wade is right, in order to agree with the verb in the main clause, any connection
is...coincidental. It uses the idiomatic phrasing connection between x and y. It presents the coordinate
objects of the preposition between (eating ... and excelling ...) in parallel form. Finally, the adjective apparent
appears in front of its headnoun connection, not after. A, B, and E use incorrect verb forms in the conditional
clause. A and B use the unidiomatic connection of x and y. A and C violate parallelism with eating of. C and E
incorrectly place apparent after its headword connection.
52
This sentence requires parallel verb forms within the relative clause that might escape... and kill. C, the best
choice, uses parallel verb forms that are followed appropriately by the conditional would have in the who clause
that modifies humans. Choices A and B each violate parallel construction by introducing a new independent
clause, it would kill... and it might kill... Though choices D and E begin by observing parallelism, the use of
them at the end of each creates a problem of pronoun reference: them cannot refer to the singular microbe. In
addition, choices B, D, and E lack would and thus do not express the conditional.
53
A, the best choice, correctly focuses upon the recording system by making it the straightforward subject of the
sentence and the logical referent of the pronoun it in the last line. B makes installation and operation the
subject, distorting the focus and leaving it without a clear referent. C distorts the focus with an awkward and
confusing delayed subject construction. C also omits the conjunction that necessary to introduce the clause
stating the result (even Sorenson did not know . . .). D, a long noun phrase with no finite verb, produces a
fragment rather than a complete sentence. E awkwardly inverts the order of the subject and predicate in the
main clause and thus cannot be logically connected to the remainder of the sentence.
54
This sentence requires that the participial phrase setting free... connect to the gerund construction by filing a
deed...; it was the filing of a deed that made possible the setting free .... Choices A and B establish this
connection, but only A, the best choice, completes the participial phrase appropriately. In choices B and D the
misconstructed phrases set[ting] free more than the 500 slaves ... mistakenly suggest that Carter set free
slaves that were not his own. Choices C and D distort meaning by paralleling stunned and set free, as though
these were two separate and independent actions. E begins a second independent clause, which--though
grammatically acceptable--again distorts the meaning. In choices B, C, and E, considered as is unidiomatic.
55
This sentence requires parallelism in the three coordinate complements that form the direct object clause: local
witnesses are (1) difficult..., (2) reticent, and (3) suspicious... These three elements are logically parallel and
must be formally parallel as well. Each must be expressed in an adjective or adjective phrase. C, the best choice,
does this clearly and correctly. A, B, D, and E violate the parallelism in one of two ways. A and B convert the third
element into a second, coordinate predicate for the object clause by repeating the verb are. D and E convert the
third element into a second, coordinate object clause by introducing the words they are. Moreover, A, B, and D
lack the conjunction that needed to introduce the direct object clause.
56
This sentence compares the costs required to maintain two kinds of roads. B, the best choice, is able to
maintain parallelism in the comparison as well. Choice A incorrectly shifts the meaning by comparing the cost of
dirt roads with the cost of maintaining paved roads. Choice C does the opposite: it compares the cost of
maintaining dirt roads with the cost of paved roads themselves. Choice D further confuses the sentence by
adding a nonparallel clause, it does for, in which it has no clear referent. Choice E introduces the infinitive
phrase to maintain... and wrongly attempts to complete the comparison with the nonparallel prepositional
phrase for....
57
A, the best choice, correctly (1) uses a noun clause introduced by that after contend, (2) keeps the "contention"
clear by making all of the thousands of languages the subject of the noun clause, and (3) precisely indicates
the relationship of the thousands of languages to the common root language (they can be traced back to it).
B and C produce convoluted and ill-focused sentences by making the world's five billion people the subject of
the noun clause. The phrase of which all in B is unidiomatic (all of which is the idiom). C uses the wordy and
indirect traceable back to. D incorrectly substitutes an infinitive clause for the "that" noun clause required after
contend. E, in substituting a noun phrase, becomes incoherent and ungrammatical.
58
The word or phrase that begins this sentence should establish the contrast between the size of the United
States population and the activities of its citizens. Choices D and E are the only ones that establish the contrast,
and only E, the best choice, expresses meaning accurately with the phrase Although accounting for. With in
choice A and Despite having in choice D confusingly suggest that United States citizens somehow possess,
rather than constitute, 5 percent of the world's population. Choices B and C lose the contrast between the
opening phrase and the main clause, and As is unidiomatic in B.
59
Choice A is the best. Its wording is unambiguous and economical. The plural pronoun they agrees with its
antecedent, property values. The pronoun whose clearly refers to homeowners and efficiently connects them
with the idea of lost equity. In B, C, and D, substituting in that their or because their for whose is wordy and
confusing since the antecedent of their might be they, not homeowners. Furthermore, can potentially is
redundant in B and E. Both D and E use the singular pronoun it, which does not agree with its logical antecedent,
property values.
60
Choice E, the best answer, uses constructions that are parallel to some propose', others suggest. . . , and
still others are calling .... Choices A and B immediately lose the parallel construction, and also produce
sentence fragments, by shifting to by suggesting ... and by calling .... Choice B starts like choice A and then
shifts back to the verb call, losing the parallel with the second part (by suggesting). Choices C and D correctly
begin the second part of the parallel by using suggest. Choice C, however, introduces the nonidiomatic for
decreasing, which creates some difficulty in meaning. Choice D loses parallel construction in the third part by
shifting to by calling.
61
D, the best choice, uses a correct sequence of present and future indicative verb forms--predicts, will fail, and
is--in the three related clauses. Density, an abstract "mass" noun, is logically construed with greater than. In A
and B, would fail disagrees with the other verbs in tense and mood. Choice A misconstrues density with more
numerous than, and B uses the pretentious and illogical word provided for ifm a conditional clause after a
negative idea (would fail). C's should fail and was are confusing and inconsistent with predicts. C and E use
the absurd phrase timber wolf density. (The wolves are not dense; their population is dense.) E also uses an
inconsistent subjunctive form, were, and misconstrues density with more numerous than.
62
This question requires the correct placement of sentence parts to achieve accurate meaning and to avoid
awkwardness. Choice C most accurately and efficiently expresses the meaning of the Tennessee
child-passenger protection law. Choices A and B absurdly indicate that it is the parents, not the children, who are
to be restrained. Choices D and E misplace the phrase under four years of age so the phrase dangles and
seems to modify restrained rather than children. In addition, E misplaces the phrase in a child safely seat to
create the idea that the parents are in a child safety seat.
63
D, the best choice, correctly subordinates sleeping and moving to hangs while using the idiomatically correct
phrasing so (infrequently) that.... The pronoun its shows clearly that the limbs belong to the sloth, not the trees.
Choice A illogically coordinates hang and sleep and, like E, uses the unidiomatic expression infrequently
enough that. B creates an awkward and nonparallel series: sloths hang ..., they sleep ..., and with.... C
creates a confusing and absurd image with use their... limbs to hang ..., sleep ..., and move .... A, B, and C all
mistakenly use the plural sloths, which does not agree , with its coat and... its toes. E wrongly coordinates
hangs and sleeps and violates parallelism by inserting it before moves to create a new independent clause.
64
Choice B is best. Choice A attaches the relative clause which could be open ... to the noun development,
when, in fact, it is the park that could be open. Choice C omits that, the object of proposed that is needed to
introduce the clause describing the proposal. C also uses to be unidiomatically where be is correct: the
commission proposed [that] funding ... to be obtained is wrong. Choice D incorrectly uses perhaps open to
the public ... to modify development; the phrase should modify park. Choice E, which seriously distorts
meaning, says that the commission proposed development funding and that such funding could be open to
the public ....
65
C, the best choice, uses a clear, direct, and economical adjective clause to indicate the percentage of household
incomes below the poverty line in the community in question. Choices A and E insert the pronoun them without a
stated antecedent. In addition, the wording of both A and E confuses the percentage of community residents (the
implied referent of them) with the percentage of households, not the same thing at all. Choice B introduces the
pronoun they without an antecedent. Furthermore, the use of have in B and E and of has in D illogically
suggests that the community possesses 49% of all the household incomes below the poverty line.
66
This sentence uses idiomatic paired coordinators, not only..., but also.., to relate two basic kinds of loans to the
prime lending rate: (1) loans to small and medium-sized businesses and (2) consumer loans. B, the best choice,
is the only one that maintains the necessary parallelism in the phrases following the paired coordinates: not
only on..., but also on.... Choices C and E omit the on after but also. Choices A (not only are ..., but also on)
and D (not only the interest rates ..., but also on) are not parallel either. Choice D especially garbles the
meaning.
67
The sentence requires a subject appropriate to both members of a compound predicate, the second member
being and so were probably without language. B, the best choice, logically uses Neanderthals as the subject.
Choice A also uses this subject, but the plural pronoun those does not agree with its singular antecedent, a
vocal tract. C, D, and E present the inappropriate subject vocal tracts, which cannot logically govern the
second member of the predicate (i.e., vocal tracts cannot be said to be without language). Moreover, it is
better to use the singular in referring to an anatomical feature common to an entire species; C, D, and E use the
plural vocal tracts. D compounds the problem by giving multiple vocal tracts to one Neanderthal.
68
Choice B, the best answer, correctly uses the adverbial phrase twice as many... to modify the verb produces;
properly employs many rather than much to describe a quantity made up of countable units (apples); and
appropriately substitutes did for the understood produced to express the logically necessary past tense of
produces. Choice A awkwardly substitutes the adjective double for twice; uses that without a clear referent;
and misuses has to refer to events occurring in 1910. Choice C employs the incorrect much in a wordy
construction and also misuses has. D is wordy and imprecise;... as there were in 1910 refers to all apples
produced in 1910, regardless of location. E is illogical: since that refers to a doubling, E nonsensically asserts
that the doubling occurred in 1910.
69
The correct answer will maintain parallelism in a coordinate series. Three mysteries are mentioned, and the first
establishes the form required for the other two members of the series, a noun phrase introduced by the (the
unexpected power ...). A, the best choice, correctly uses noun phrases introduced by the for the second and
third members of the series (the upward thrust... and the strange electromagnetic signals ...). Choice B
substitutes a clause (strange electromagnetic signals were detected...) for the third noun phrase, and C and
D use clauses instead of noun phrases for both additional members of the series. E uses two noun phrases, but
they are not introduced by the. Furthermore, the phrase one man who ... does not logically identify one of the
mysteries.
70
Choice B is the best answer. It maintains the passive voice and the past tense (were ... aired) established in the
introductory clause. Choice D breaks this parallelism by shifting from passive to active voice (moved). Choice A
also uses the active voice and inappropriately shifts to the past perfect tense (had moved); the past perfect
should be used to indicate action completed before, not after, the action of were aired. In C, moving introduces
a dangling participial phrase in place of an independent clause, thus producing a fragment. E drops were before
aired and finishes the sentence with two prepositional phrases that distort the meaning.
71
The sentence calls for an adverbial clause of purpose to explain why Henry sought the annulment. D, the best
choice, does this clearly and correctly. It is introduced by an appropriate conjunction, so that, and contains a
logically appropriate verb form, could marry. Awkward and imprecise, A does not specify who is to marry Anne.
B substitutes an illogical coordinate predicate for the needed purpose clause; because the annulment had not
yet been granted. Henry could not remarry. C lacks an appropriate conjunction, and the infinitive clause to be
married to ... makes this choice awkward and unidiomatic. Although E uses an appropriate conjunction, in
order that, the verb form would marry is unidiomatic and illogical (might marry would be better).
72
Choice B, the best answer, follows an idiomatic form of expression for paired coordinates--not X, but rather Y;
here rather is optional but preferable because it helps establish a contrast between the two types of energy
source. Choice A incorrectly uses a semicolon rather than a coordinating conjunction (but) to connect the
coordinate parts; a semicolon should be used to join independent clauses. In choices C, D, and E, that of has
no grammatical referent and thus produces illogical and incorrect sentences.
73
In choice A, turned... and she persuaded is needlessly wordy and lacks the compact parallelism of turned...
and persuaded. In choice B, persuaded.. . in claiming is unidiomatic; the form persuaded x to [do] y is
required. In choices C and E, turned... and persuading that violates parallelism, and the passive construction
in C is awkward and unnecessarily wordy. Parallel, idiomatic, and concise, choice D is best.
74
In this sentence, the relative pronoun that should introduce the clause The Adventures ... published to make a
relative clause modifying year. Also, the singular title of the novel demands a singular verb: for example, one
would say, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is (not "are") a great book." Only C, the best choice, satisfies
both requirements. Choices A and D incorrectly substitute as for that to introduce the relative clause. Choice A
also mistakes the novel title for a plural (were published). B confuses meaning (written in the same year of
publication as). E creates a similar confusion of meaning, and both D and E are awkward and imprecise
because that is too far away from its referent (letter) to be clear.
75
The members of a comparison (more X than Y) should be expressed in parallel form. D, the best choice,
correctly uses parallel clauses introduced by because. The clauses themselves are clear and direct. Choice E
uses parallel forms, but the convoluted structures are awkward and wordy. Furthermore, the word bodies would
need an apostrophe (bodies') since it is the logical subject of the gerund burning (that is, it answers the
question, "Whose burning?"). A, B, and C do not use parallel forms for the two members of the comparison. In
addition, A and B use due to unidiomatically to mean because; properly used, due to is synonymous with
attributable to.
76
This question poses two problems: subject-verb agreement and accuracy of expression. Choice E, the best
answer, states the matter clearly and grammatically. The subject, all of the information, must be taken as
singular because the mass noun information is singular. Choices A, B, and C all mistake the number of the
subject and incorrectly use the plural verb are contained. A, B, and D do not make it clear whether 50,000 to
100,000 represents all or a fraction of the genes in a cell. C and D, by referring to cells in the plural, do not make
it clear whether the number mentioned is to be found in each individual cell or in a collection of cells.
77
A, the best choice, uses the idiomatic form So X that Y to establish a cause/effect relationship between clauses
X and Y. In B, the subject of the as ... as clause (young recruits) should be the subject of the main clause as
well (e.g., they). Furthermore, main clauses following concessive clauses must express a contrasting notion: for
example, "As ill-prepared as they are, they nevertheless find good jobs." C offers a wordy, convoluted because
clause. In D, the sentence form X is why is unidiomatic (X is the reason why would be idiomatic but needlessly
wordy and awkward). E exhibits subject-verb disagreement: young recruits ... explains why.
78
At issue in this question is subject-verb agreement; the number ... has risen must be the kernel of the main
clause. Choice E, the best answer, uses a singular verb form, has, to agree with the singular subject, the
number. Choices A, B, and C mistake criminals for the sentence subject and so incorrectly use the plural verb
form have. In B and C the verb phrases (performing .. . ) do not clearly modify criminals, because another
noun (sentences) intrudes, nor do the verb phrases clearly establish temporal relationships among events. D is
wordy and imprecise (in their performing of specific jobs).
79
Choice A suffers from the wordy and indirect expression were a help in the rescuing of. B creates an awkward,
redundant, fused sentence in which the first clause has to be repeated in the vague this of the second clause;
furthermore, the comma required before and in larger compound sentences is omitted. D and E are confusingly
worded because they begin with present participles (having and knowing) that appear at first to refer to the
immediately preceding noun, newcomers, rather than to Native Americans. D also has the wordy and
unidiomatic helped the rescue of. Clear, direct, and economical, choice C is best.
80
A, the best choice, correctly employs the simple past verb tense to describe a past condition. Choice B
inappropriately switches to the past perfect (had been); the past perfect properly describes action that is
completed prior to some other event described with the simple past tense. Choice C presents a dangling
adverbial modifier, as if during ..., that illogically modifies we see. D ambiguously suggests that the quasars
appeared to us in the formation of the universe_ that is, as though we were present to view them then. In E,
as though in distorts the meaning to suggest that we see the quasars in a hypothetical situation_ that is, that
they may not have been involved in the formation of the universe.
81
The subject of the main clause (such firms) presumes a prior reference to the firms in question. Furthermore,
the logical subject of to survive and the logical complement of required should be made explicit. All three
demands are met by B, the best choice. Choices A, C, and D, with no reference to the firms in question, meet
none of these demands. In choice E, the illogical and awkward use of a prepositional phrase (for firms' survival)
buries the needed initial reference to firms in a possessive modifier.
82
A correct sentence will follow the idiomatic form of expression to think ofX as Y. Only D, the best choice, uses
as in the comparison. The infinitive to be in A and the participle being in B and C cannot grammatically and
idiomatically connect those choices to the rest of the sentence. Moreover, in C the plural pronoun their does not
agree with the singular noun referent, consumer. E is awkward and wordy in its use of the passive voice.
83
In choice A, the phrase/row being stolen lacks the necessary noun or pronoun that specifies what it is that
might be stolen. Choice B is best because it provides the pronoun it, which refers to chalice. Like choice A,
choices C and E lack the pronoun. D is wordy and awkward in its use of the passive voice. Moreover, avoid is
used imprecisely in C and D because it illogically suggests that the chalice is acting to prevent its own theft.
84
A, the best choice, observes an appropriate sequence of verb tenses_ a single act in the past (peaked) followed
by an extended activity reaching to the present (have slipped). The as clause states clearly the cause of the
slippage. B suffers from the redundant and unidiomatic expression the reason being because. In C, the use of
the simple past slipped with since then is unidiomatic because since then denotes extended time. In D, the
intrusion of the awkward many ... costs causes the antecedent of they to become unclear. Furthermore, a
comma should precede the but since it introduces a second independent clause. In E, yet also requires a
comma before it, are slipping with since then is illogical, and were unable represents an ungrammatical tense
shift.
85
This question poses two major problems: parallel structure and precision of expression. In E, the best choice,
parallel structure is maintained in the participial phrases introduced by leading and prompting, and the phrase
55-percent increase in delays conveys the meaning more accurately than does the phrase 55 percent more
delay(s) in A and B. Also, choice A lacks parallelism. In C and D the infinitive phrase to lead to ... is less
idiomatic than the participial phrase leading to .. .'_ Choice C uses the singular delay where the plural is
needed to indicate an increase in the number of delays; the phrase increase in delay has no exact meaning.
86
In this sentence, members of the jury are presented with two options: they may (1) go home or (2) be confined
to a hotel. The rejected motion would have allowed them to do the first rather than [to] suffer the second.
Members of the jury must be the logical subject of both options, and both must be expressed in parallel form,
that is, as infinitive clauses. E, the best choice, observes these requirements. In A and C, the phrase members
of the jury is not the logical subject of the second option, to confine them or confining them, since jury
members are not doing the confining. In B and D, confined and confinement are not infinitives and thus do not
parallel to go in the first option.
87
Choice A, the best answer, is the only option that accurately expresses the comparison by using the idiomatic
form as many... as. In B and C, as many ... than is unidiomatic, and in C and E, those who is a wordy intrusion.
In D and E, more is redundant because the phrase four times as many in the original sentence conveys the
idea of more.
88
B, the best choice, uses the preferred relative pronoun, who, to refer to many people. It observes formal and
logical parallelism in the wording of the relative clause and the main clause: first, adverbs (once and now)',
second, verbs (might have died and live); and third, adverbial prepositional phrases (in childhood and into
old age). A and C use the questionable relative pronoun that to refer to many people. They also violate the
parallel structure noted above. D and E, although they use the correct pronoun, who, offer convoluted and
nonparallel structures for the relative clause.
89
A correct sentence must maintain parallel structure. In choice A, the three-part series (to diagnose ...,
deciding,... or other purposes ...) lacks parallelism. C, the best choice, replaces A's third element with/or such
purposes as; this phrase functions as a stem for the other two elements, which are recast as two parallel
phrases--diagnosing ... or deciding .... Thus, choice C not only manages the parallel structure but avoids the
less effective other purposes such as these at the end of choice A. Choice E uses faulty parallel structure (to
be used..., deciding ..., or the like). In B and D, which and the use of which introduce sentence elements that
lack antecedents or reference. In addition, D is wordy.
90
E, the best choice, uses parallel phrases for the two major coordinate members (in the rise of... and in the
victory of ...) and also for the series listed in the first of these (s in t, u in v, w in x, and y in z). E's placement of
the In... reformism phrase at the beginning of the sentence is direct and efficient. Choices A, B, C, and D omit
and before the Mahdi, the last element in the first series; thus, they incorrectly merge the second major member
(the victory of) into the series listed under the first member (the rise of). Furthermore, in A and B the in...
reformism phrase has been awkwardly set between the subject and verb of the sentence.
91
Choice E, the best answer, is the only choice that maintains parallelism with the infinitive phrases to disclose...,
[to] provide ..., and to create .... In A and B, the second element lacks the infinitive marker to. Choice C loses
parallelism by shifting to a participial phrase, creating .... Choice D loses parallelism by dropping the conjunction
and', a modification problem results because the participial phrase creating ... attaches to the noun checks,
thus distorting the meaning of the last element of the parallel construction.
92
The underlined section must modify the noun phrase seventeenth-century French by noting additions made to
French subsequently from foreign vocabularies. C, the best choice, does this clearly, directly, and correctly in the
form of a relative clause. Because the subject of this clause is plural (words), the verb must also be plural (have
been added). A and B incorrectly use singular forms has been added and is added. B also awkwardly inverts
and divides the verb phrase (added... is). D offers an awkward adverbial construction, which cannot be used to
modify nouns. E offers an incoherent and incomplete new clause with the wrong verb tense and no logical
complement for are added_ that is, we are not told to what the words are added.
93
In comparative structures (unlike X, Y...; in comparison with X,Y...) X and Y must be both logically and
grammatically parallel. Choices A, B, C, and D all fail to observe logical parallelism: (A) Unlike the United
States,... the rains...; (B) Unlike the United States farmers .. . , the rains .. . ; (C) Unlike those of the United
States, . . . most parts of Sri Lanka's rains ... ; and (D) In comparison with the United States,... the rains... .
C also suffers from the unintelligible most parts of Sri Lanka's rains. E, the best choice, avoids the problem by
using two independent clauses linked by but to present a clear, direct contrast between conditions in the United
States and those in most parts of Sri Lanka.
94
The subject, presenters, must be followed by a limiting appositive _ such as one of whom, that identifies an
individual from among a larger group. Choice D is best: one of whom best serves an appositive to the subject,
presenters, because the phrase means "one from among several or many." Choice A, one who, is
unacceptable because one who cannot refer to the plural presenters. Choices B and C are ungrammatical
because who competes with one as the subject of is. Choice E employs which, a relative pronoun that does not
refer to people (presenters), but only to things.
95
Choices A, B, and C incorrectly use the adjective form seeming to modify the participial adjective unlimited. B
also uses the unidiomatic preposition to instead of the correct at after targeted, while C violates sense by
having all the antibodies specifically targeted at an, that is, one, invading microbe or substance. Choice D
correctly uses seemingly, but it repeats B's incorrect use of targeted to and C's illogical all... specifically. Only
E, the best choice, correctly uses the form seemingly to modify unlimited, the correct preposition, at, with
targeted, and the logically correct each, which links the specific antibodies to specific microbes or substances.
96
Choice D, the best answer, correctly uses the past-tense verb forms migrated and existed to refer to actions
completed in' the past. Choices A, B, and E present incorrect verb forms for expressing simple past action, and
existing once in E is imprecise. Although choice C manages the correct tense, it misplaces the sentence
elements so as to suggest that the Western Hemisphere once existed between Siberia and Alaska.
97
Two elements connected by a coordinate conjunction should be expressed in parallel form. Only A, the best
choice, correctly observes this rule (the most popular major for women as well as for men). B, C, D, and E
omit the necessary/or in the second element. In addition, by using the simple coordinate conjunction and, C, D,
and E create the illogical impression that the decision of 28 percent of the women entering college in 1985 to
choose business as a major also made the major the most popular among men. The conjunction as well as
implies that business had already been the most popular major for men and that in 1985, for the first time, it
became the most popular major for both sexes.
98
If than is followed by a clause referring to army, the subject of that clause must be singular (it). Furthermore, the
verb of that clause will need to be in the past perfect form (had had) because it refers to a time before the
simple past of entered. Finally, the preposition/or is more precise than in because supplies are gathered/or an
upcoming campaign. Choices A and C incorrectly use the plural they and the simple past had. Moreover, A uses
the less precise in. Choices D and E wisely dispense with the full clause and use a simple prepositional phrase.
D, however, uses the imprecise in and the plural their. Only E, the best choice, avoids all the errors mentioned
above.
99
At issue is the accurate expression of a complex comparison. Choice D, the best answer, presents the proper
form of comparison, will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will; thus, choice D logically
indicates that earthquakes in the eastern United States are 100 times more devastating than are western
earthquakes. Choices A, B, and E use it incorrectly to suggest that the same quake strikes both the eastern and
the western United States. In choice C, 700 times the area... than is unidiomatic.
100
Choice A, the best answer, is the only one that manages syntactic control of the sentence. The sentence
consists of two independent clauses, beginning Certain pesticides ... and one reason, which are connected by
a semicolon. Dangling or misplaced modifiers plague choices B, C, and D: in each case, the phrase if used
repeatedly in the same place illogically modifies one reason rather than certain pesticides. In choice E, The
finding of much larger populations .. . than in those that is an improperly constructed comparison.