In this example, we want to express a meaning that is in agreement and lacks redundancy. Because “per year,” is already in the non-underlined portion of the sentence, it would be completely redundant to also refer to the amount raised as “annual.” for this reason, we can eliminate the original construction, “is able to raise an annual,” as well as “are able to raise an annual.” The latter construction also makes the error of attempting to agree with the singular “organization” to the plural verb “are.” Since our subject is singular, we need the singular “is” and can thus also eliminate “are able to raise,” leaving us with our correct answer, “is able to raise.”

In this example, we want to aim to express a meaning that is concise and logical. In order to do so, we’ll want to address what “that of” or “those of” is meant to refer to in the answer options. Since the comparison is between “their own species and (that of/those of) others, it would seem as though the “those of” is attempting to refer to the species. However, the term “others” already refers to the species, so it would be completely illogical and redundant to draw a comparison between “their own species and the species of other species.” This leaves us with only our correct answer, “others,” which draws a succinct and logical comparison.

This example attempts to describe the differences between two animals. However, since differences are already inherently varied, it would be redundant to describe the differences as “varied differences,” particularly since we already address that there are “several differences” in the non-underlined portion. “Variable differences” is illogical in meaning, and is an improper word to utilize in this context, and “difference” does not agree with the plurality of “several” in the non-underlined portion. This leaves us with our correct answer, “differences.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the redundancy of the phrase “protesting against.” Since protesting already means speaking up against, it would be redundant to utilize both of those terms. “Away from” makes the same mistake, and “for,” is perhaps even more illogical, as it conflicts with the context reinforcing that members of the group favored environmentally-conscious options over coal. In this case, we should delete the underlined portion entirely, as it is unnecessary and in some options outright illogical.

In this example, we’re being tested on the redundancy of the use of both “depreciated” and “in value.” Since depreciated already means “decreased in value,” the “in value” is completely redundant and unnecessary. This issue is not corrected with the phrases “has been depreciating in value” or “have been depreciating in value,” and the latter creates an additional error of agreement between “the stock” and “have.” Our correct answer, “depreciated,” eliminates this redundancy, and concisely expresses a meaning that is logical.

In this example, the original construction “some of it” is needlessly wordy and redundant, and also creates pronoun ambiguity. “Of them” creates a similar mistake, and “with an age” is also unnecessary, as the age is clarified later in the sentence. In this case, the most appropriate construction would be to delete the underlined portion entirely, as it adds no additional meaning or value to the sentence and is thus unnecessary and redundant.

As written, this sentence has two issues. The first is its use of a comma directly before the conjunction "but." Such a comma is used only when you have two independent clauses being joined. Since the subject does not change, you do not have two wholly independent clauses. Secondly, the sentence needs a comma before the word "instead" to set that word off from the rest of the sentence, as it slightly interrupts the flow of the main idea.

In the original sentence, the boy is the subject of the sentence, so the phrase "with its teeth bared" would be a modifier for him. The author was intending to use this phrase to describe the wolf, so one has to choose an option in which the phrase clearly modifies the wolf. In "With its teeth bared, the wolf approached...," the wolf is the subject of the sentence, so the modifier applies correctly. 

The sentence, "With bared teeth the boy cowered as the wolf the sheep approached" does not fix the modifier, and it is confusing to read without a comma setting off the prepositional phrase, "with bared teeth." The sentence, "Its teeth was bared as the wolf approached the sheep and the boy was cowering as it did so," is needlessly wordy. The sentence, "With his teeth bared, the boy cowered as the wolf approached the sheep" still has a misplaced modifier, and now that "his" is added, it is significantly more confusing.

The word "irritated" is an interrupter, and should be set off by commas on either side. Adding a comma after "irritated" makes the first part of the phrase "they returned home and irritated," which is incorrect as "returned" and "irritated" are not parallel. 

Changing the phrase to "irritably resolving" ruins the parallelism of the sentence, with "resolving" not matching "returned". Adding a comma to the end of the phrase does not fix the issue of the interrupter, and it also ruins parallelism by making "returned" and "irritated" a pair. Therefore, the only correct answer is "they returned home and, irritated, resolved."

Commas should be used to separate a dependent clause from an independent clause. The independent clause in this sentence is "He was hot and exhausted," while the dependent clause is "fanning himself rapidly in a feeble attempt to cool himself down." To separate the main clause from the dependent clause, a comma should be put between the word "exhausted" and "fanning."