- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440 was a pivotal moment in history because it allowed for the mass production of books.
When combining sentences, you need to maintain clear meaning while creating smooth, logical connections between ideas. This question tests your ability to merge related information without creating confusion or awkward constructions.
The correct answer is D because it preserves the logical flow and clarity of the original sentences. It starts with the main subject ("The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440"), identifies it as historically significant ("was a pivotal moment in history"), and then explains why using a clear causal connection ("because it allowed for the mass production of books"). The sentence structure is straightforward and easy to follow.
Answer A contains a structural problem: "the printing press was a pivotal moment in history" is illogical because the printing press itself wasn't a moment—the invention was the pivotal moment. Answer B creates confusion with its word order, making "which was a pivotal moment in history" seem to refer to the year 1440 rather than the invention itself. The opening phrase "Allowing for the mass production of books" also creates an awkward sentence start. Answer C uses coordination ("and") when subordination would be more effective, making the connection between ideas less clear and creating a somewhat choppy rhythm.
When combining sentences on the SHSAT, look for the version that maintains the clearest subject-verb relationships and uses appropriate connecting words to show how ideas relate. Avoid constructions that create ambiguous pronoun references or illogical connections between sentence elements.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences to emphasize the quality of the photography?
Answer: With its stunning photography of the penguin life cycle in Antarctica, the documentary was a visual masterpiece.
When you're asked to combine sentences with a specific emphasis, you need to identify which sentence structure puts your target idea in the most prominent position. In this case, you want to emphasize the stunning photography above all other details.
Choice B is correct because it places "stunning photography" at the very beginning of the sentence in a prepositional phrase that immediately grabs attention. The phrase "With its stunning photography" creates emphasis through positioning, and calling the documentary "a visual masterpiece" reinforces this focus on the visual quality. The sentence structure makes photography the star of the sentence.
Choice A buries the photography detail at the end with "featured photography that was absolutely stunning." While it mentions the quality, the emphasis falls more on the documentary's subject matter since that information comes first and takes up most of the sentence.
Choice C uses a weak compound structure with "and the photography in it was very stunning." This creates two equal parts rather than emphasizing one element, and "very stunning" is less impactful than the original "stunning."
Choice D starts with "Featuring stunning photography" but then shifts focus to "the harsh environment of Antarctica," which wasn't even mentioned in the original sentences. This adds irrelevant information and dilutes the emphasis on photography.
Remember: when a question asks you to emphasize a particular element, look for the answer choice that puts that element in the most prominent structural position—typically at the beginning of the sentence or in the main clause.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The vast Roman Empire stretched from Britain to the Middle East, with its network of roads connecting its distant provinces.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to create smooth, clear, and grammatically correct compound or complex sentences. The goal is to maintain all the original meaning while eliminating choppiness and redundancy.
Choice B works best because it creates a flowing, well-structured sentence using effective subordination. "The vast Roman Empire stretched from Britain to the Middle East" serves as the main clause, while "with its network of roads connecting its distant provinces" functions as a prepositional phrase that smoothly adds supporting information. This structure is both grammatically sound and easy to follow.
Choice A is grammatically correct but awkward because it uses two different connecting methods—first a participial phrase ("stretching") then a coordinating conjunction ("and")—creating an uneven rhythm. Choice C changes the emphasis incorrectly by making the roads the main focus rather than the empire's vastness and geographic reach, which distorts the original meaning. Choice D commits a serious grammatical error by creating a comma splice—the phrase "its network of roads connecting its distant provinces" cannot stand alone as an independent clause, so it cannot be joined to the previous independent clause with just a comma.
For sentence combining questions, look for the choice that maintains parallel structure, uses appropriate conjunctions or transitional phrases, and preserves the logical emphasis of the original sentences. Avoid comma splices and awkward shifts in grammatical structure.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The public library is expanding its collection of e-books to provide more resources that patrons can access from the comfort of their home.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to create clear, concise, and logically flowing sentences while preserving all the original meaning. The key is finding the version that connects ideas smoothly without redundancy or awkward phrasing.
The correct answer is D because it efficiently combines all three ideas in a logical sequence: the library's action (expanding e-books), the purpose (to provide more resources), and the benefit to patrons (home access). The phrase "to provide more resources that patrons can access from the comfort of their home" creates a clean cause-and-effect relationship using an infinitive phrase and a relative clause.
Choice A fails because it uses repetitive "and" connectors, creating an awkward, choppy rhythm. The pronoun "they" also creates ambiguity about whether it refers to patrons or resources.
Choice B contains unclear pronoun reference with "there" and "which." The phrase "patrons at home" suggests patrons are permanently at home, distorting the original meaning that patrons can access resources from home.
Choice C changes the emphasis by starting with patrons rather than the library's action, and "for them" is unnecessarily wordy since "patrons" was already mentioned.
For SHSAT sentence combining questions, look for the option that maintains the original meaning while using the most sophisticated and efficient sentence structure. Avoid choices with unclear pronoun references, awkward repetition, or unnecessarily complex phrasing. The best combinations flow naturally and show clear relationships between ideas.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Even though the scientist's hypothesis was proven incorrect in the experiment she conducted, she still learned valuable information from the results.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to merge ideas while maintaining clarity and showing the proper relationships between concepts. Look for the logical connections: cause and effect, contrast, sequence, or emphasis.
The correct answer is C because it effectively uses "Even though" to establish the contrast between the failed hypothesis and the positive outcome. This subordinating conjunction clearly shows that despite one negative result, something valuable still occurred. The sentence flows naturally and emphasizes the key message: scientific value can come from unexpected results.
Let's examine why the other options fall short. Choice A uses simple coordination with "and" and "but," which creates a choppy, list-like structure rather than showing sophisticated relationships between ideas. Choice B awkwardly includes "anyway" and uses a participial phrase that makes the sentence unnecessarily complex without adding clarity. Choice D creates confusion with its word order—"after her hypothesis was proven incorrect when she conducted her experiment" scrambles the chronology and makes the sentence harder to follow.
The key difference is that C uses subordination effectively. "Even though" creates a dependent clause that properly frames the contrast, while the independent clause delivers the main point about learning valuable information.
For sentence combining questions on the SHSAT, always look for the option that uses subordinating conjunctions (like "even though," "although," "because") to show clear relationships between ideas, rather than just stringing clauses together with "and" or "but."
- Which of the following is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Geysers, such as the famous Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park, are hot springs that intermittently eject a column of water and steam.
When combining sentences, you want to create a clear, smooth flow that maintains all the important information while avoiding awkward repetition or confusing structure.
Choice C works best because it presents the information in the most logical order: it starts with the general term "geysers," provides a specific example in parenthetical form ("such as the famous Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park"), then defines what geysers are and do. This structure flows naturally from specific example to general definition, and the phrase "such as" elegantly incorporates the example without disrupting the main idea.
Choice A is problematic because it starts with the specific example (Old Faithful) before defining what a geyser is, creating a backwards flow of information. The relative clause structure also makes the sentence feel heavy and awkward.
Choice B uses repetitive coordination with multiple "and" connectors, creating a choppy, list-like feel rather than smooth integration. This approach doesn't truly combine the sentences—it just strings them together.
Choice D contains unnecessarily complex and awkward phrasing. The phrase "famously exemplified by" is wordy and formal to the point of being confusing. The opening phrase "As hot springs that..." also creates an unclear sentence structure.
When combining sentences on the SHSAT, look for the option that creates the smoothest flow from general to specific (or vice versa) while avoiding unnecessary wordiness or awkward constructions. The best combinations feel natural when read aloud.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Deciding to learn a new language, Maya chose Mandarin Chinese, considered one of the most difficult languages for English speakers to learn.
When combining sentences, you want to create a smooth, grammatically correct sentence that preserves all the original meaning while eliminating redundancy and awkward phrasing.
Choice A works best because it efficiently combines all three ideas using proper grammatical structures. The participial phrase "Deciding to learn a new language" introduces Maya's general goal, followed by her specific choice of Mandarin Chinese, and then a past participle phrase "considered one of the most difficult languages" that modifies Mandarin Chinese. This creates a flowing, well-structured sentence.
Choice B is problematic because it makes "Mandarin Chinese" sound like it's only "a new language" to Maya personally, rather than acknowledging that she decided to learn a new language in general and chose Mandarin specifically. The phrase "which is a new language" is redundant since we already know she's learning a new language.
Choice C contains a comma splice error. After "choosing Mandarin Chinese," there's an improperly connected independent clause "it is considered one of the most difficult." This creates a run-on sentence that violates standard grammar rules.
Choice D is wordy and awkward, particularly the ending phrase "as a new language," which doesn't clearly connect to the rest of the sentence. The conjunction "and" also creates an unnecessarily choppy rhythm instead of smoothly integrating the information.
When combining sentences on the SHSAT, look for options that use participial phrases, relative clauses, or appositives to create sophisticated, grammatically correct sentences while avoiding comma splices and redundant phrasing.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences to clarify the author's motivation?
Answer: To ensure her book would be as accurate as possible, the author spent over a year researching her topic and traveling to three different continents.
When you encounter a sentence combination question, look for the logical relationship between the ideas. Here, you need to identify that the author's desire for accuracy is her motivation for doing research and traveling—it's the reason behind her actions, not just another thing she did.
Choice D correctly establishes this cause-and-effect relationship by starting with "To ensure her book would be as accurate as possible." This structure immediately shows that accuracy was the driving purpose behind everything else the author did. The phrase "to ensure" creates a clear causal connection, making the research and travel the means to achieve the goal of accuracy.
Choice A fails because it simply lists three actions with "and" connectors, treating the desire for accuracy as just another event rather than the motivation behind the others. Choice B uses "after" to show time sequence, but this suggests the author only wanted accuracy as an afterthought following her research, which doesn't capture the motivational relationship. Choice C employs "although," which creates contrast and suggests the author wanted accuracy despite her research efforts—the opposite of the intended meaning.
The key difference is that D uses purpose language ("to ensure") while the other choices use additive (A), temporal (B), or contrasting (C) connections that miss the motivational relationship entirely.
Strategy tip: When combining sentences about someone's actions, always look for the underlying "why"—the motivation or purpose. Words like "to," "in order to," and "so that" often signal the correct relationship better than simple connectors like "and" or "after."
- Which of the following is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The Mississippi River, the second-longest river in North America, flows through the central United States and is a vital transportation route.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to merge ideas smoothly while maintaining logical flow and proper emphasis. The goal is to create a single sentence that preserves all the original information without awkward constructions or misplaced emphasis.
Choice C is correct because it uses an appositive phrase ("the second-longest river in North America") to efficiently incorporate the descriptive information, then connects the two main actions with a clean coordinating conjunction. The sentence flows naturally: it identifies the river, provides its key characteristic, then states what it does and why it matters.
Choice A creates an awkward construction by using "flowing" as a participle that seems to modify "North America" rather than the river itself. The phrase "flowing through the central United States as a vital transportation route" incorrectly suggests the river flows as a transportation route, which is illogical.
Choice B uses unnecessary coordination with "and it flows," making the sentence choppy and wordy. The opening phrase "As a vital transportation route" also places unnatural emphasis on this information rather than the river's identity.
Choice D begins with a participial phrase that, while grammatically acceptable, buries the river's most important identifying characteristic (being the second-longest) at the end of the sentence, disrupting the logical flow of information.
Strategy tip: In sentence combining questions, look for the choice that maintains the most logical order of information (usually identity first, then characteristics and actions) while using the most efficient grammatical structures like appositives and coordinating conjunctions.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef system, is located off the coast of Queensland, Australia, and is composed of over 2,900 individual reefs.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to merge ideas smoothly while maintaining proper grammar and logical flow. The key is creating a sentence that sounds natural and avoids structural errors.
Choice A works best because it uses an appositive phrase ("the world's largest coral reef system") to efficiently incorporate the first piece of information, then connects the remaining details with a clean conjunction. The structure flows logically: subject with description, location, and composition. All punctuation is correct, and the sentence reads smoothly.
Choice B creates an awkward structure by starting with the location, which makes the sentence feel backwards. While grammatically correct, it disrupts the natural flow from general (what it is) to specific (where and how big).
Choice C also disrupts logical order by leading with the composition detail. This creates confusion because readers learn how many reefs exist before understanding what the Great Barrier Reef actually is.
Choice D contains a comma splice error - "reefs, it is located" incorrectly joins two independent clauses with just a comma. This is a serious grammatical mistake that makes the sentence incorrect.
Strategy tip: In sentence combining questions, always check for comma splices first - they're automatic wrong answers. Then evaluate the remaining choices based on logical flow: move from general to specific information, and choose the option that sounds most natural when read aloud.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences to show a cause-and-effect relationship?
Answer: Because the chef prepared the meal with great care using locally sourced ingredients, the diners were very impressed.
When you encounter questions about combining sentences to show cause-and-effect relationships, look for transition words and sentence structures that clearly establish what caused what. The key is identifying which events are causes and which are effects, then choosing the option that makes this relationship most explicit.
In this passage, the chef's careful preparation and use of local ingredients are the causes, while the diners' impression is the effect. Answer A effectively combines all three sentences using "Because" at the beginning, which immediately signals a cause-and-effect structure. The word "because" explicitly shows that the chef's actions (careful preparation + local sourcing) directly led to the result (impressed diners).
Answer B uses "which" to connect the ideas, but this creates more of a descriptive relationship than a clear cause-and-effect one. The structure suggests the information is additional rather than causal.
Answer C simply strings the sentences together with "and," creating no cause-and-effect relationship at all. The conjunction "and" just adds information without showing how the pieces connect logically.
Answer D has a structural problem with the participial phrase. "Preparing the meal" and "using ingredients" seem to modify "the chef's work" rather than "the chef," creating awkward and unclear meaning. Additionally, it doesn't establish as strong a causal connection.
Remember: When combining sentences to show cause and effect, look for subordinating conjunctions like "because," "since," or "as" that explicitly signal causal relationships. These words immediately tell your reader which part is the cause and which is the effect.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences to highlight the contrast?
Answer: Although the author's first novel received widespread critical acclaim after its publication, its sales were initially quite slow.
When combining sentences to show contrast, you need to use connecting words and structures that clearly highlight the opposing relationship between ideas. Here, the contrast is between critical success and poor sales performance.
Choice A effectively uses "although" to establish the contrast right from the start. This subordinating conjunction signals that despite one positive outcome (critical acclaim), there was an unexpected negative result (slow sales). The sentence flows logically and emphasizes the surprising nature of this contrast.
Choice B uses "and" as a connector, which simply adds information rather than showing contrast. While it mentions both facts, it doesn't highlight that these outcomes are surprising when considered together.
Choice C uses a participial phrase "Receiving critical acclaim" but fails to establish a clear contrast. The structure makes the sentence awkward and doesn't emphasize the unexpected relationship between critical praise and sales performance.
Choice D contains a logical error with "so she published it." This suggests the author published the novel because of the acclaim and slow sales, which doesn't make sense chronologically or causally. The novel was already published before it could receive reviews or sales data.
Remember that contrast words like "although," "despite," "however," and "while" are your best tools for highlighting opposing ideas. Look for the option that not only combines the information but also uses language that emphasizes the unexpected or contradictory relationship between the facts presented.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Launched in 1977, the Voyager 1 space probe is now the most distant human-made object from Earth, continuing to transmit data from interstellar space.
When combining sentences, you need to create a smooth, logical flow while maintaining all the important information. The key is using proper sentence structure techniques like participial phrases and parallel construction.
Choice C effectively combines all three sentences by using a participial phrase ("Launched in 1977") at the beginning, followed by the main clause about Voyager 1's current status, and ending with another participial phrase ("continuing to transmit data from interstellar space"). This creates a chronological flow from past (launch) to present (distance record and data transmission) while maintaining excellent sentence rhythm.
Choice A awkwardly places the current status first, disrupting the logical chronological sequence. The phrase "and it continues" also creates unnecessary wordiness after an already complex opening.
Choice B uses repetitive "and" connections three times, creating a choppy, elementary sentence structure. The multiple conjunctions make the sentence feel like a list rather than a sophisticated combination, and it cuts off important details about "interstellar space."
Choice D contains a comma splice error between "launched in 1977" and "it continues." This creates a run-on sentence that incorrectly connects two independent clauses with only a comma, which is grammatically incorrect.
Remember that effective sentence combining should follow chronological or logical order, use varied sentence structures like participial phrases to avoid repetition, and maintain all key information from the original sentences. Look for options that create smooth transitions between ideas rather than just stringing clauses together with conjunctions.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The city council voted to preserve the historic theater, which, built in 1928, had previously been scheduled for demolition.
When you encounter sentence combination questions, you need to merge multiple short sentences into one flowing sentence while preserving all the original information and maintaining proper grammar and logic.
Choice B correctly combines all three pieces of information with proper structure and flow. The main clause "The city council voted to preserve the historic theater" establishes the primary action. The nonrestrictive clause "which, built in 1928, had previously been scheduled for demolition" smoothly incorporates both the construction date and demolition status. The word "previously" creates logical flow by showing the sequence: first scheduled for demolition, then preserved by the council.
Choice A creates a logical error with "because it had been scheduled for demolition." This suggests the council preserved the theater because it was going to be demolished, which reverses the cause-and-effect relationship. The council preserved it despite the demolition plans, not because of them.
Choice C uses "so" incorrectly, implying that being scheduled for demolition caused the council to vote for preservation. This creates the same logical confusion as choice A, just with different sentence structure.
Choice D contains a misplaced modifier. "Scheduled for demolition" appears to modify "the city council" rather than "the theater," creating grammatical confusion. Additionally, "in the year 1928" is unnecessarily wordy compared to simply "in 1928."
Strategy tip: In sentence combination questions, read each option carefully to check both grammar and logic. Make sure modifying phrases are placed next to what they actually modify, and verify that connecting words like "because" and "so" create sensible relationships between ideas.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: The museum acquired a new 17th-century painting by an unknown artist.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to create clear, concise writing that eliminates unnecessary words while preserving all important information. The goal is to find the most efficient way to express the same ideas.
Choice A is correct because it transforms the three separate sentences into one streamlined sentence by converting the information into modifying phrases. "17th-century" becomes a compound adjective, and "by an unknown artist" becomes a prepositional phrase. This creates the most concise version while maintaining all the essential information: the museum's acquisition, the painting's age, and the artist's anonymity.
Choice B is wordy and awkward. The phrase "who is unfortunately unknown" is unnecessarily long, and "unfortunately" adds an opinion not present in the original sentences. The word "from" is also redundant when you can use the compound adjective "17th-century."
Choice C fails to truly combine the sentences effectively. It keeps the same choppy structure with "and" connecting two independent ideas, making it feel like two sentences forced together rather than one fluid sentence.
Choice D creates an awkward construction with "Its artist unknown" at the beginning. This absolute construction is grammatically complex and sounds unnatural, making the sentence harder to read than necessary.
Strategy tip: In sentence combining questions, look for the version that eliminates redundant words and creates the smoothest flow. The best answer usually converts full clauses into modifying phrases or adjectives, making the writing more sophisticated and concise.
- Which of the following is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Leonardo da Vinci was a renowned artist and a brilliant scientist and inventor whose notebooks contain thousands of pages of drawings and observations.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you're being tested on your ability to create clear, concise prose while maintaining logical relationships between ideas. The goal is to eliminate unnecessary repetition while preserving all important information and creating smooth flow.
Choice D is correct because it efficiently combines all three ideas using proper grammatical structure. It identifies Leonardo as both "a renowned artist and a brilliant scientist and inventor," then uses the relative pronoun "whose" to connect this information to the detail about his notebooks. This creates a single, flowing sentence that maintains all the original meaning without awkward constructions.
Choice A is problematic because it places the least important information (the notebooks) at the beginning, making Leonardo's identity seem secondary. The semicolon also creates an awkward separation that doesn't improve clarity.
Choice B contains a dangling modifier error. The phrase "A renowned artist" appears to modify "notebooks" rather than "Leonardo da Vinci," creating confusion about what exactly was the renowned artist. Additionally, the causal relationship implied by "because" isn't the strongest logical connection here.
Choice C uses too many conjunctions ("but," "also," "so"), making the sentence choppy and overly complicated. The "but" suggests contrast where none exists, since being an artist and scientist aren't contradictory, and the "so" implies a causal relationship that isn't necessarily direct.
For sentence combining questions, look for the option that creates the smoothest flow while avoiding dangling modifiers, unnecessary conjunctions, and awkward word order. The most concise, grammatically sound option is usually correct.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D., the city of Pompeii was remarkably preserved under layers of volcanic ash.
When you encounter sentence combination questions, you need to create a single, flowing sentence that maintains all the original information while using effective writing techniques like subordination and proper sequencing.
The best combination uses a participial phrase to create a sophisticated sentence structure. Choice A begins with "Buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D.," which serves as a participial phrase that efficiently combines the cause (the eruption) with the time (79 A.D.) and source (Mount Vesuvius). The main clause then focuses on the result: the remarkable preservation. This structure emphasizes the most interesting outcome—Pompeii's preservation—while subordinating the historical details.
Choice B uses "therefore," which creates a logical connection but results in a wordier, less elegant sentence. The word "therefore" also suggests a stronger causal relationship than what the original sentences imply.
Choice C strings together multiple clauses with "and" and "which," creating a choppy, run-on sentence that lacks the smooth flow of effective writing. This coordination-heavy approach doesn't prioritize information effectively.
Choice D places "Remarkably preserved under layers of ash" at the beginning, which creates confusion about the sequence of events. Readers might initially think Pompeii was already preserved before being buried, disrupting the logical flow of cause and effect.
For SHSAT sentence combination questions, look for answers that use participial phrases or subordinate clauses to create sophisticated sentence structures while maintaining chronological logic and emphasizing the most significant information in the main clause.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Although exhausted from the climb when they reached the summit at dawn, the hikers felt a sense of accomplishment.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, you need to look for the option that flows most naturally while preserving all the original meaning and showing clear relationships between ideas.
Choice A is correct because it effectively uses the subordinating conjunction "although" to show the contrast between being exhausted and feeling accomplished. The structure "Although exhausted from the climb when they reached the summit at dawn, the hikers felt a sense of accomplishment" creates a sophisticated sentence that emphasizes the main point (accomplishment) while acknowledging the contrasting condition (exhaustion). The temporal element (dawn) is smoothly integrated.
Choice B fails because it uses repetitive "and" conjunctions, creating a choppy, run-on sentence that sounds juvenile and doesn't show meaningful relationships between the ideas.
Choice C has structural problems. The phrase "Exhausted from the climb, the hikers reached the summit" suggests they were already exhausted before reaching the summit, which changes the logical sequence. Also, "profound" adds meaning not present in the original.
Choice D is awkwardly constructed with too many participial phrases and interrupting elements. The phrase "feeling, however, a sense of accomplishment" is particularly clunky and disrupts the sentence flow.
Strategy tip: For sentence combining questions, read each option aloud mentally. The best choice will sound natural and sophisticated while maintaining the original meaning. Watch out for options that add new words (like "profound") or create unclear time sequences.
- What is the best way to combine these sentences to clarify the relationship between the ideas?
Answer: Although the athlete trained rigorously for the competition, she injured her ankle a week before the event and was consequently unable to participate.
When combining sentences, you need to choose transitions that clearly show the logical relationships between ideas. This passage presents a sequence where effort leads to an unfortunate outcome that prevents success.
Choice A is correct because it uses the most precise transitions to clarify these relationships. "Although" effectively sets up the contrast between the athlete's preparation and the unfortunate outcome. "Consequently" explicitly shows that her inability to participate was a direct result of the injury. This creates a clear logical flow: despite preparation → injury occurred → result was inability to participate.
Choice B uses weaker transitions that don't clarify relationships as effectively. "But" and "so then" are more casual and less precise than "although" and "consequently." The phrase "so then" is also redundant and awkward.
Choice C changes the meaning by suggesting the training happened before everything else with "after training," when actually the training and injury timing overlap. "Which meant" is also less direct than "consequently" in showing cause and effect.
Choice D significantly alters the original meaning by focusing on the training being "stopped" rather than on the athlete's inability to participate in the competition. This shifts emphasis away from the main point about missing the event.
When combining sentences on the SHSAT, look for answer choices that use precise transitional words to show exact relationships (contrast, cause-effect, sequence) while preserving the original meaning. Avoid options that use vague transitions or change the focus of the passage.
- Which of the following is the best way to combine these sentences?
Answer: Standing on a hill overlooking the town, the old house, which local children claimed was haunted, had been abandoned for decades.
When you encounter sentence combining questions, focus on creating a clear, logical flow while preserving all the original information without changing the meaning or creating awkward constructions.
Choice C works best because it uses effective subordination and maintains logical relationships. The participial phrase "Standing on a hill overlooking the town" efficiently establishes the setting, while the relative clause "which local children claimed was haunted" smoothly incorporates the third piece of information. The main clause focuses on the house being abandoned, creating a natural emphasis and flow.
Choice A creates confusion with "where it had been abandoned" — the word "where" incorrectly suggests the abandonment happened in the town rather than describing the house itself. The phrasing also becomes unnecessarily wordy and awkward.
Choice B distorts the logical relationship by using "so," which incorrectly implies that the children's claims caused the abandonment. This changes the meaning of the original sentences, which simply present three separate facts about the house.
Choice D is wordy and awkward with phrases like "the one that the local children all claimed." The opening participial phrase "Abandoned for decades on a hill" also creates unclear modification — it suggests the house was abandoned specifically on the hill, rather than describing a house that happens to be on a hill.
For sentence combining questions, look for the choice that maintains the original meaning while creating the smoothest, most natural flow. Avoid options that change logical relationships between ideas or create unnecessarily complex or awkward phrasing.
