- Consider the word "literally," which has expanded from meaning strictly "in a literal sense" to being used as an intensifier ("I literally died laughing"). Major dictionaries now include the intensifier sense, though many usage guides discourage it in formal writing. Which analysis best characterizes the current status of this expanded meaning?
Answer: The intensifier sense is established in general usage but not yet fully accepted in formal registers, which reflects a convention that is currently in the midst of change.
Questions about language change ask you to think both descriptively—how words are actually used—and prescriptively—how style guides say they should be used. Standard English isn't fixed; it's a set of overlapping conventions that shift over time and vary by register. When usage is in transition, the most accurate analysis acknowledges both realities.
The best answer does exactly that: dictionaries record "literally" as an intensifier because speakers overwhelmingly use it that way, yet usage guides still flag it in formal writing because that convention hasn't fully shifted. Describing the word as established generally but not yet accepted formally captures a convention caught mid-change.
The choice claiming the sense is now standard everywhere overreaches descriptively: a dictionary documents usage, but that doesn't make a word appropriate in every register. The choice calling it improper in every setting overreaches the other way, treating usage guides as absolute authorities and dismissing real, widespread usage. The choice claiming no judgment is possible is a false dilemma—disagreement between sources doesn't erase judgment; it often reveals precisely where a word sits in the process of change. Only the correct answer synthesizes both kinds of evidence coherently, which is what "convention in the midst of change" is meant to describe.
- Which of the following pairs best illustrates a usage that was once widely condemned as nonstandard but is now accepted in most formal registers of American English?
Answer: "Contact" used as a verb (as in "Please contact the office")—once denounced by 20th-century usage critics, now unremarkable.
Questions about language change ask you to distinguish between usages that have genuinely shifted in status over time and usages that remain nonstandard despite being common in speech. The key is to think historically: some "errors" that older prescriptivists railed against have quietly become invisible, while others remain stigmatized in edited writing.
Choice A captures exactly this trajectory. Early 20th-century usage guides (like those of Ambrose Bierce and other critics) explicitly condemned "contact" as a verb, insisting it should only be a noun. Today, "Please contact us" appears in the most formal business, legal, and academic prose without raising an eyebrow — a textbook case of a once-condemned usage becoming standard.
Choice B is wrong because "then" for "than" is a spelling/homophone confusion, not a usage shift; it's still marked as an error in any edited text. Choice C misrepresents the status of double negatives: while they're grammatical in many dialects (and were standard in Chaucer's English), they are decidedly not accepted in formal edited American English today. Choice D describes basic subject-verb agreement failure, which remains a clear error in formal writing — no reputable editor accepts "The books is."
When you see questions about language change, watch for the distinction between (1) genuine historical shifts in acceptability (like verbing nouns: "contact," "impact," "access") and (2) features that are common in casual speech or dialect but still flagged in edited prose. Prescriptivist complaints from a century ago often lose — but not always.
- A writing teacher tells students, "The rule against splitting infinitives is not observed by most contemporary style guides, and sentences like 'to boldly go' are acceptable in formal writing." A student objects: "But my previous teacher marked that as wrong." Which response most accurately explains the situation in terms of how usage conventions operate?
Answer: The student's previous teacher was applying an older convention that many contemporary authorities no longer endorse; conventions can be revised as usage evolves.
Questions about usage conventions are really questions about how language rules work: are they fixed laws, or are they evolving agreements among educated writers and editors? For the AP-level writing exam, you should treat grammar and usage as descriptive norms that shift over time, not immutable logic.
The split-infinitive "rule" is a classic example. It was imported into English by 19th-century grammarians who modeled English on Latin (where infinitives are single words and literally can't be split). Modern style guides—Chicago, AP, Merriam-Webster—now permit split infinitives, especially when splitting improves clarity or rhythm ("to boldly go"). So B accurately captures the situation: the previous teacher wasn't wrong in her era, but conventions have been revised as usage evolved and prescriptivist authorities updated their guidance.
A treats grammar as binary (right/wrong), ignoring that usage standards are conventions maintained by consensus, not physical laws. Two authorities can legitimately disagree during a period of change. C invents a distinction—there's no basis for saying the split-infinitive rule applies only to spoken English; the debate has always centered on written prose. D misunderstands the source of grammar rules: English has no governing body (unlike French with the Académie française), and rules don't derive from pure logic—they derive from observed usage and editorial consensus.
When you see questions contrasting older and newer usage rules, remember: English conventions are established by consensus among writers, editors, and style guides, and they legitimately change over time. Look for answers that acknowledge this evolution rather than treating rules as absolute.
- A student notes that 18th-century writers commonly used the singular "they" ("Every person should mind their own business"), that 19th-century grammarians condemned it, and that 21st-century style manuals such as the Chicago Manual of Style and the APA Publication Manual now explicitly accept it. Which conclusion about usage is most soundly supported by these observations?
Answer: What counts as "correct" usage is shaped by convention, and prescriptions themselves shift as authorities reassess established practice.
The pattern is the key: singular "they" was used freely in the 1700s, condemned in the 1800s, and re-accepted in the 2000s. That arc shows a construction moving in and out of favor as authorities reassess it, so the best conclusion recognizes that "correctness" is a matter of convention and that even prescriptive rulings themselves change over time.
The choice claiming the 19th-century ban confirms the construction was incorrect and that acceptance signals decline misreads the evidence: the form was standard among educated 18th-century writers before grammarians objected, and "decline" is a value judgment the data don't support. The choice saying prescriptive rulings determine acceptability and override actual practice is contradicted by this very history, where writers' usage eventually overrode the grammarians' objections. The choice concluding that English has no stable standard overreaches: usage evolves, but at each moment there genuinely were recognized standards—they simply differed across eras.
When you evaluate usage claims, test each conclusion against the whole timeline rather than any single stage of it, and watch for conclusions that either ignore the reversals or read more into them than the evidence allows.
- Which claim about usage does this passage most directly support?
Answer: Prescriptive judgments about words can be overturned when authorities acknowledge that established usage has diverged from earlier proscriptions.
Questions like this ask you to identify the specific claim a passage supports—not a broader or adjacent idea, but the exact argument the evidence backs up. Pay attention to what the passage actually demonstrates versus what it merely hints at.
Here, the passage sets up a contrast: the grandfather's prescriptive rule (only "in a hopeful manner") versus the AP Stylebook's 2012 reversal accepting the sentence-adverb use. The key move is that an authority changed its position because usage had shifted. That's precisely what C captures: prescriptive rules can be overturned when authorities recognize that actual usage has diverged from older proscriptions.
A is wrong because the passage actually undercuts the grandfather's authority—it doesn't elevate older speakers over style guides; if anything, it does the opposite. B overstates the passage: it never claims dictionary listings make a meaning the only acceptable one, nor does it address formal writing exclusively. D goes too far historically—the passage says nothing about whether sentence adverbs were "always" standard or whether 20th-century objections lacked historical basis; it only notes that authorities eventually reversed course, which is a much narrower claim.
A useful strategy for "which claim does this support" questions: underline what the passage actually says and then check each answer for words that overreach ("only," "always," "generally more reliable"). The correct answer usually matches the passage's scope precisely—no broader, no narrower. Watch especially for absolute language in distractors, since real arguments rarely support absolute claims.
- Which sentence, added as a concluding claim, would most accurately generalize the point the excerpt makes about usage?
Answer: A convention's status in standard usage depends on the current judgment of authoritative guides and educated practice, not on the mere survival of an older rule.
When a question asks for a "concluding claim" that "generalizes" a passage, your job is to find the statement that captures the overall pattern of the evidence without exaggerating it or introducing outside assumptions. Read the passage as a small argument and ask: what larger principle do these specific facts add up to?
Here, the passage gives you three pieces of evidence: (1) Fowler dismissed the rule in 1926, (2) some handbooks still teach it, and (3) major current style authorities accept terminal prepositions. The through-line is that what counts as acceptable usage is set by current authoritative judgment and actual educated practice, not by the mere fact that an old rule is still being repeated. That is exactly what B says, which makes it the best generalization.
A overreaches by claiming rules "never actually change" — the passage in fact shows changing consensus, which contradicts A. C introduces a nationality argument (British vs. American) that the passage never raises; Fowler's authority isn't dismissed for being British. D misrepresents the evidence: the style guides in the passage are loosening an old rule, not "inventing new rules," and the passage says nothing about textbook inconsistency generating student confusion.
Strategy tip: On "which sentence best concludes/generalizes" items, eliminate any choice that (a) makes a claim stronger than the evidence supports ("never," "always"), (b) introduces a new topic not in the passage, or (c) distorts what the evidence actually shows. The right answer usually restates the passage's pattern at one level of abstraction higher.
- Which statement best reflects the principle about usage conventions that this sentence illustrates?
Answer: Usage conventions can evolve with collective practice, and authoritative guides may revise their recommendations accordingly.
Questions about usage and language change ask you to identify the principle an example demonstrates, not just restate the example. Look carefully at what the sentence actually claims: traditionalists have one view, but usage guides are changing their recommendations based on how people actually use the word. That pattern—collective practice influencing authoritative standards—is exactly what C captures. The sentence shows both halves of the principle: language users shift a convention (treating "data" as a mass noun), and reference works update to reflect that shift.
A contradicts the sentence entirely. The passage shows that Latin etymology (where "data" is plural of "datum") is not controlling modern English usage; the sentence treats change as legitimate, not forbidden.
B overstates the case. The sentence doesn't say a single printed appearance makes something standard—it describes a gradual, collective process reflected in multiple usage guides over time. "Automatically" is the trap word.
D makes a sweeping grammatical claim the sentence never supports. The passage discusses one specific noun ("data") in a particular context, not a blanket rule that mass and count nouns are interchangeable. Formal writing still distinguishes them; "data" is a special case precisely because its status is shifting.
When a question asks what principle a passage "illustrates," pick the answer that matches the passage's *scope*—not broader, not narrower. Watch for absolute words like "automatically," "always," "cannot," and "freely," which usually signal a distractor that overreaches beyond what the evidence supports.
- Which principle about usage does the passage most clearly demonstrate?
Answer: A single form like "whom" can be appropriate in one register and pretentious in another, and its overall status may be shifting over time.
The op-ed does something subtle: it treats "whom" as still expected in formal writing while admitting it sounds stilted in casual contexts, and it notes the form is "fading." The best answer captures all three ideas at once—the same form can be right in one register and pretentious in another, and its status can change over time. That is exactly the passage's point.
The choice about a fading form losing its standing goes too far: the passage says "whom" is still expected in formal writing, so recommending the casual form generally contradicts the text. The choice about teachers reflecting an outdated register misreads the situation—the student researched the issue rather than dismissing the teacher, and the teacher's rule still holds in formal writing, so "casual practice" shouldn't settle it. The choice claiming the distinction survives only in speech is contradicted directly: a careful guide like Garner's still expects "whom" as an object in formal prose, so writers have not abandoned it there.
When a usage passage balances register and change, look for the answer that holds both truths together rather than one that resolves the tension by picking a single side.
