Modifiers & Sentence Construction - ACT English

This sentence presents you with two major decision points: between the comma and semicolon and between "and featuring" and "featuring". Check the difference between the comma and semicolon first. Remember that a comma cannot be used to link two complete sentences without a conjunction and that a semicolon can only be used to link two complete sentences. "ambitious; featuring" can be eliminated since what follows the semicolon is not a complete sentence, and "ambitious, it featured" can be eliminated because there is a complete sentence on either side of the comma without a conjunction. Since the sentence is not a list and what follows after the comma isn't a complete sentence, "and featuring" does not make sense. "ambitious, featuring" turns the second part of the sentence into an appositive, allowing you to use the comma.

In this example, we are presented with several modifiers across our answer options. The relative clause introduced by “which” must refer to the noun or noun phrase that comes before the comma. Since it is illogical to say that the sun has lead to heated debates, we can eliminate all answers that lead with the relative clause “, which.” This leaves us with only our correct answer: “leading to heated debates over which of these objects deserve​.” Since this option replaces the relative clause “, which” with a participial phrase beginning with “leading,” we are now able to modify the subject or subject containing clause. In this case, this construction is necessary to modify the fact that astronomers discovered the objects, the logical meaning of this sentence.

In this example, we need to identify the order of modifying phrases that correctly expresses a logical meaning. Here, each of our modifiers should be as close as possible to what they’re trying to modify. The logical meaning, in this case, expresses that we used to sit “on top of an old well,” that the old well is described as “in a meadow,” and that the meadow is “behind the corner store. Thus, “on top of an old well in the meadow behind the corner store​” is the correct and logical answer. All other answer choices seem to incorrectly (and illogically) modify either the meadow or the corner store as “on top of an old well.”

In this example, we need the introductory, participial modifier “alarmed by the recent decline of the stock market” to logically modify something that has the potential to be “alarmed.” In the original construction, “alarmed by the recent decline of the stock market” seems to modify “many retirement investments.” This is an illogical construction, as investments don’t have the capacity to be alarmed. With this in mind, we can eliminate answers beginning with “many retirement investments” and consider only those that begin “many retirement investors.” From here, we can eliminate the option “many retirement investors have been switched from stocks,” as the investors are not being switched, they are switching stocks. So, we’re left with “many retirement investors have switched their stocks,” the only logical construction out of our options.

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the participial modifier “published since 1851.” What follows the comma for this introductory modifier should be what the sentence is attempting to describe as “published since 1851.” Since the logical meaning of the sentence should suggest that “the New York Times” was “published since 1851,” not “the founders,” we can eliminate all wrong answers, and we’re left with “the New York Times was founded by,” our correct answer.

In this example, we’re being tested on the modifier type introduced by the underlined portion of the sentence. In the original construction, and in all answer options that begin with “which,” we introduce a relative clause that must logically refer back to the noun or noun phrase directly before. Since “yesterday” did not force the city council to cancel the parade, we can eliminate any option that utilizes the relative modifier “which.” This leaves us with the correct answer, “forcing.” since participial (-ing) modifiers at the end of a sentence can refer back to the subject or subject-containing clause, in this case, “a severe snowstorm.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the introductory participial modifier “performing in front of a crowd for the first time.” To logically complete the sentence, what follows the comma must be something that can be described as “performing in front of a crowd for the first time.” In the original construction, the sentence attempts to modify “the audibility,” making the introductory modifier illogical. In our other incorrect answers, the sentence illogically modifies “Mike’s voice” as “performing in front of a crowd for the first time. This is also an illogical and thus incorrect construction. Our correct answer, “Mike had difficulty making his voice audible,” correctly modifies “Mike” as “performing in front of a crowd for the first time."

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the introductory modifier “with a safe habitat in which to repopulate and thrive.” This modifier must be followed by what the sentence is logically trying to modify. The original construction, “the peregrine falcon has had the ability to recover from endangered status” logically modifies the peregrine falcon as “with a safe habitat in which to repopulate and thrive,” and also maintains subject-verb agreement. All other answer options either illogically modify “the endangered status” or “the ability” as “with a safe habitat in which to repopulate and thrive,” or incorrectly pair the subject “the peregrine falcon” with the plural verb phrase “have had.”

In this example, we’re being testing on the application of different types of modifiers. In the existing structure, the relative clause modifier, “which has led to heated debates” must refer back to the noun or a noun phrase that comes before the comma. Since the sentence could not logically be referring to “the sun” with this modifier, any construction with “which” is incorrect. The correct answer replaces the relative clause with the participial modifier “leading to,” which can refer back to the subject or subject-containing clause, the desired structure in this case.

Whenever you are given two items in a list, you need to make sure that those items are both parallel with one another. The first item in the list is "in terms of the types". In order to be parallel to this, the next item must also be in the form of "in terms of." The only answer choice that does this is "and in terms of". "As well as" and "as well as in terms of" can be eliminated because the word both must always be paired with the word "and," and leaving the words as is (NO CHANGE) can be eliminated because it isn't parallel to the first item in the list.

Whenever you have a list within a question on the ACT, you need to make sure that each of the parts of the list is parallel to one another. Because the first two items in the list are in the form of "is __", the third item in the list must also be in this form. "Is better mixed" and "is mixing better" are both in this form, but "better mixed" (NO CHANGE) and "mixes better" are not. To choose between "is better mixed" and "is mixing better", look at the second word. The word "mixed" matches the word "compacted" earlier in the list, while "mixing" does not.

Whenever part of a list is underlined within the ACT English section, remember that you must always check to make sure that the list is parallel and correctly separated by commas. In this case, the two items in the list are "to consult historical records" and "talk of members of the community." Notice that while you have the parallel verbs "consult" and "talk" as the two items in your list, the logic doesn't make sense. If you are investigating to find artifacts, you wouldn't talk about members of the community - you would talk with them. The only answer that maintains parallelism and logic is " talk to."

When encountering a list, ensure that each item in the list is presented in the same way, maintaining a parallel structure. In this case, the first two items, “checking” and “skimming,” is given in the present participle. For that reason, “reviewed” doesn’t belong here, as it is in the past simple tense. Similarly, “he reviewed” is not parallel as well as redundant, as “he” already appears at the start of the next clause. Furthermore, “he has reviewed” is in the past perfect tense, which is likewise different than the present participle used in the previous items. The correct answer, “reviewing,” is in the present participle, and thus maintains parallel structure within the list.

When encountering a list, ensure that each item in the list is presented in the same way, maintaining a parallel structure. In this case, the list begins with two items, “went to the ocean” and “saw a whale,” given in the past tense. For this reason, “trying” doesn’t fit, because it is given in the present tense. If “tried” is chosen, the list has no coordinating conjunction, which is necessary for a grammatical list. With no change, the “she” is redundant, as the previous item has been presented without a subject. For this reason, “and tried” is the best answer, as it completes the list without redundancy and while maintaining a parallel structure.

When encountering a list, ensure that each item in the list is presented in the same way, maintaining a parallel structure. In this case, the list begins with two adjectives describing Kaitlyn. For this reason, “had the focus,” which attributes focus to Kaitlyn by suggesting that she “had” it, is not parallel to the other items. Similarly, “could focus” presents a modal verb describing her ability to focus, instead of a mere adjective. The redundancy of “was,” which appears before the list and in “was focused,” shows that it is not a viable option. The remaining choice, “focused,” is an adjective which is parallel to the other two in the list, and is thus our correct answer.

When contrasting two items, it’s important they remain parallel in their structure. In this case, the comparison is being drawn between one option, “to pry the door open,” given as an infinitive, and a less efficient alternative. One candidate, “keep banging,” is given in the simple present tense, which does not match the infinitive form of the other option. Similarly, “kept banging” is given in the simple past tense, not the infinitive. Another possibility, “keeping to bang,” might at first seem to incorporate an infinitive, but is in reality altogether ungrammatical. However, if the sentence remains unchanged, “to keep banging,” an infinitive, is correctly parallel to “to pry.”

When drawing a comparison between two items, it’s important they remain parallel in their structure. In this case, “my dance moves” cannot be compared directly to “my dad,” but instead must be contrasted with the dance moves of the speaker’s dad, meaning the underlined portion should not be deleted. On the other hand, “these done by” appears to be an attempt to compare the dance moves in parallel, but “these” suggests a proximity to the moves that do not make sense in context. Of the remaining two options, “the dance moves done by” is clunkier and less succinct than “those of,” which successfully draws a parallel comparison while avoiding redundancy and unnecessary wordiness.

When contrasting two items, it’s important they remain parallel in their structure. In this case, because the first item, “playing basketball,” is given as a gerund verb, the second item should be given the same way. This means that the underlined portion should not be deleted. Although “having seen” is a gerund, it is given in the past tense, which is not parallel to “playing basketball,” which is in the present tense. Of the remaining choices, “having this opportunity to see” is clunkier than “seeing,” which retains parallel structure without being unnecessarily verbose or using “this,” which is unnecessary in this context.

When encountering a list, ensure that each item in the list is presented in the same way, maintaining parallel structure. In this case, the first three items in the list are actions, given in the simple present tense. Accordingly, “to relax,” which is in the infinitive form, is not effectively parallel to the previous listed actions. A similar option, “to get to relax,” is also an infinitive, albeit a more complex one, and is incorrect for the same reasons. Though “get to relax” is given in the simple present tense, “get to” is redundant with a descriptor which precedes the list, “a chance,” as both convey the same sense of opportunity. For this reason, “relax,” which is parallel in its use of the simple present and in no way redundant, is the best choice.