Agreement Errors - ACT English

Replace the underlined portion with the answer choice that results in a sentence that is clear, precise, and meets the requirements of standard written English.

When does the restaurant closes after dinner?

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Somebody left their phone on the table at the restaurant.

“The Common Good: The United Aim of Many” \[18\]

Among the many topics that are misunderstood \[16\] in political science, and political philosophy, the notion of the “common good” ranks foremost. Often, we think of the common good as being nothing more than getting “the most things for the most people.” For example, when a person makes multiple millions of dollars, people will often say, \[17\] “He should give back some of that money, for the sake of the common good.” Whether or not such people \[18\] should do this with his money, this is really an improper use of the expression the common good.

A better way to understand the common good is to think about common ends or common goals. An example will help to explain this. Think of a group of musicians on a stage. If all of these people came together to practice in the same room, we wouldn’t call them a symphony. \[19\] A mass of people just playing any music whatsoever are not a symphony. A symphony is an organized group; a mass of people is just a mass of people. Nothing physically differs regarding the mass of people and the symphony. \[20\] They are both made up of the same “stuff,” namely a group of musicians.

However, a common good changes \[21\] this mass into something that they never could be without that common good. \[22\] When these musicians come together to play the Dies Irae of Mozart, they become something that they never were as individuals. Each member of the group uses his or her personal skill for the sake of a new, common performance. Perhaps the tuba player loves to play loudly. Perhaps the lead violinist loves playing quickly. These preferences must be channeled and limited for the sake of the common enterprise of playing Mozart’s stirring piece of music. \[23\] The desires of the individual instrumentalists, whom play the music, no longer reigns supreme.

The common good unites this group. If you were to ask the tuba player, what are you doing, he would answer, “Taking part in the symphonic playing of the Dies Irae.” \[24\] Then, if you were to ask any other musician the same question, he or she would answer in the same way. The answer would not be, “playing the Dies Irae my way.” If that were the answer, the musician would not be part of the symphony. He or she would be doing something private, not something that is truly common.

How should underlined selection \[18\] be changed?

“The Common Good: The United Aim of Many”

Among the many topics that are misunderstood \[16\] in political science, and political philosophy, the notion of the “common good” ranks foremost. Often, we think of the common good as being nothing more than getting “the most things for the most people.” For example, when a person makes multiple millions of dollars, people will often say, \[17\] “He should give back some of that money, for the sake of the common good.” Whether or not such people \[18\] should do this with his money, this is really an improper use of the expression the common good.

A better way to understand the common good is to think about common ends or common goals. An example will help to explain this. Think of a group of musicians on a stage. If all of these people came together to practice in the same room, we wouldn’t call them a symphony. \[19\] A mass of people just playing any music whatsoever are not a symphony. A symphony is an organized group; a mass of people is just a mass of people. Nothing physically differs regarding the mass of people and the symphony. \[20\] They are both made up of the same “stuff,” namely a group of musicians.

However, a common good changes \[21\] this mass into something that they never could be without that common good. \[22\] When these musicians come together to play the Dies Irae of Mozart, they become something that they never were as individuals. Each member of the group uses his or her personal skill for the sake of a new, common performance. Perhaps the tuba player loves to play loudly. Perhaps the lead violinist loves playing quickly. These preferences must be channeled and limited for the sake of the common enterprise of playing Mozart’s stirring piece of music. \[23\] The desires of the individual instrumentalists, whom play the music, no longer reigns supreme.

The common good unites this group. If you were to ask the tuba player, what are you doing, he would answer, “Taking part in the symphonic playing of the Dies Irae.” \[24\] Then, if you were to ask any other musician the same question, he or she would answer in the same way. The answer would not be, “playing the Dies Irae my way.” If that were the answer, the musician would not be part of the symphony. He or she would be doing something private, not something that is truly common.

Choose the answer that best corrects section \[21\].

“John Adams—A Forgotten American Founder”

Sadly, the great exploits of important \[46\] men and women is often forgotten in the mists of history. The myths and historical tales of a nation can lead the people to forget \[47\] some of their most important founders and national heroes. In the United States of America, this kind of forgetfulness has occurred in the case of the Founding Father, John Adams. For a number of reasons, President Adams \[48\] had been forgotten. Recounting the \[49\] tales of the nations’ founding, many remember figures like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. \[50\] However, during those early years of the republic, Adams was a pivotal figure in assuring independence to the burgeoning nation.

\[51\] During the debates concerning the Declaration of Independence, Adams was something of a “chief orator,” tirelessly attempting to convince the gathered parties of the importance of declaring independence from England. \[52\] Adams a temperamental and passionate man, was the perfect person to fill such a role. In contrast to the judicious Franklin and the controlled and quiet Jefferson, he was fit for performing such oratorical shows and bombasts. \[53\] Although he joined Jefferson and Franklin on the drafting committee for the declaration, his most important work during this time was arguably this long project of oratory.

\[54\] In addition, many forget the lonely years Adams spent as a minister to France and as the first minister to England. What a difficult affair such posts would have been at the time. \[55\] As the minister to France, what weight could he have had with the court of such an old European nation? Furthermore, Adams \[56\] was not temperamentally \[57\] suited for French courtly customs being a stern and somewhat moralistic man. \[58\] Then, to be sent to England—how difficult that must have been. As the minister on behalf of a once-rebel nation, how could he stand before the Court of King James? Nevertheless, Adams served his \[59\] post nobly and deserves great recognition for this devoted service to his young nation.

Choose the answer that best corrects section \[47\].

Adapted from Sozein ta Phainomena: An Essay Concerning Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo by Pierre Duhem (translated by Matthew Minerd)

What are physical theories’ value? What relation does it have with metaphysical explication? These are questions that are greatly stirred and raised in our days. However, as with other questions, they are in no manner completely new. It is a question that has been posed in all ages. As long as there has been a science of nature, they have been posed. Granted, the form that they assume changes somewhat from one age to another, for they borrow their various appearance from the scientific vocabularies of their times. Nevertheless, one need only dismiss this outer vestment in order to recognize that they remain essentially identical to each other.

The science of nature offers us up until the 17th century at least, very few parties that managed to create theories expressed in a mathematical language. . . . If we leave aside several exceptions, an historical investigation places before our eyes strong evidence of a type science that would indeed be a prediction of modern mathematical physics. This science is astronomy. That is, where we would say, “Physical theory,” the Greek, Muslim, Medieval, and early Renaissance sages would say, “Astronomy.” However, for these earlier thinkers, the other parts of the study of nature did not attain a similar degree of perfection. That is, they did not express the laws of experience in a mathematical manner similar to that found in astronomy. In addition, during this time, the study of the material realities generally were not separated from what we would call today, “metaphysics.”

Thus, you can see why the question that concerns us takes two related, though different forms. Today, we ask, “What are the relations between metaphysics and physical theory?” However, in past days; indeed, for nearly two thousand years; it was formulated instead as, “What are the relations between physics and astronomy?”

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the passage. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Autocratic styles of leadership frequently annoys the people who must work under such leaders.

Every one of the new coaches face serious troubles with their teams.

The youngest girl among the students have dark hair.

Adapted from The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (1902)

In the matter of religions, it is particularly easy distinguishing the too orders of question. Every religious phenomenon has its history and its derivation from natural antecedents. What is nowadays called the higher criticism of the Bible are only a study of the Bible from this existential point of view, neglected to much by the earlier church. Under just what biographic conditions did the sacred writers bring forth their various contributions to the holy volume? What had they exactly in their several individual minds, when they delivered their utterances? These are manifestly questions of historical fact, and one does not see how the answer to it can decide offhand the still further question: of what use should such a volume, with its manner of coming into existence so defined, be to us as a guide to life and a revelation? To answer this other question we must have already in our mind some sort of a general theory as to what the peculiarities in a thing should be which give it value for purposes of revelation; and this theory itself would be what I just called a spiritual judgment. Combining it with our existential judgment,we might indeed deduce another spiritual judgment as to the Bibles’ worth. Thus, if our theory of revelation-value were to affirm that any book, to possess it, must have been composed automatically or not by the free caprice of the writer, or that it must exhibit no scientific and historic errors and express no local or personal passions, the Bible would probably fare ill at our hands. But if, on the other hand, our theory should allow that a book may well be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of his fate, than the verdict would be much favorable. You see that the existential facts by itself are insufficient for determining the value; and the best adepts of the higher criticism accordingly never confound the existential with the spiritual problem. With the same conclusions of fact before them, some take one view, and some another, of the Bible's value as a revelation, according as their spiritual judgment as to the foundation of values differ.

Which is the best form of the underlined selection, "According as their spiritual judgment as to the foundation of values differ"?

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

I starting learning Russian when I entered college.

“The Common Good: The United Aim of Many” \[19\]

Among the many topics that are misunderstood \[16\] in political science, and political philosophy, the notion of the “common good” ranks foremost. Often, we think of the common good as being nothing more than getting “the most things for the most people.” For example, when a person makes multiple millions of dollars, people will often say, \[17\] “He should give back some of that money, for the sake of the common good.” Whether or not such people \[18\] should do this with his money, this is really an improper use of the expression the common good.

A better way to understand the common good is to think about common ends or common goals. An example will help to explain this. Think of a group of musicians on a stage. If all of these people came together to practice in the same room, we wouldn’t call them a symphony. \[19\] A mass of people just playing any music whatsoever are not a symphony. A symphony is an organized group; a mass of people is just a mass of people. Nothing physically differs regarding the mass of people and the symphony. \[20\] They are both made up of the same “stuff,” namely a group of musicians.

However, a common good changes \[21\] this mass into something that they never could be without that common good. \[22\] When these musicians come together to play the Dies Irae of Mozart, they become something that they never were as individuals. Each member of the group uses his or her personal skill for the sake of a new, common performance. Perhaps the tuba player loves to play loudly. Perhaps the lead violinist loves playing quickly. These preferences must be channeled and limited for the sake of the common enterprise of playing Mozart’s stirring piece of music. \[23\] The desires of the individual instrumentalists, whom play the music, no longer reigns supreme.

The common good unites this group. If you were to ask the tuba player, what are you doing, he would answer, “Taking part in the symphonic playing of the Dies Irae.” \[24\] Then, if you were to ask any other musician the same question, he or she would answer in the same way. The answer would not be, “playing the Dies Irae my way.” If that were the answer, the musician would not be part of the symphony. He or she would be doing something private, not something that is truly common.

How should underlined selection \[19\] be changed?

“Democracy—Always a Good Thing?”

In the contemporary world, we tend to think that democracy is always the best form of government. We are enchanted by the idea of self-governance for it seems to affirm the maturity of the citizens of a nation. Instead of being ruled by benign-monarchs or the landed-aristocracy, the citizens of a democracy are people who exercise self-mastery in a fully human manner. Well, at least this is what we tend to think of the matter.

Really, however, democracy is an ambiguous affair. Often, we use such single terms to name two different types of social arrangements. Such an equivocation is understandable. Whenever all (or at least most) of the people take part in political life, it seems like we have a kind of democracy. However, it is important to make a clearer distinction.

On the one hand, there can be a community that aims at the common good. In such a group, the people come together to have a political community that aims to fulfill human goals that could not be done by isolated individuals. Such a group will come together to establish educational institutions to preserve culture, regulate commerce in order to help normalize economic interactions, pass many laws that regulate our social interactions, and undertake many other affairs. Although all of these things benefit the individuals in the given society, such a group of self-governing people do not aim merely at the private satisfaction of the people. This kind of “democracy” works together, for common political goals.

On the other hand, there can be a community that merely aims at the private goods of the citizens. The Greek philosopher Aristotle remarked in his text, the Politics, that democracy was a government by the numerous poor people for the sake of those same people’s private goods. Clearly, he was using “democracy” in this sense. If the people of a nation only come together in order to assure their own private freedom and to receive benefits for themselves, a given society is this kind of so-called democracy.

Of course, it is difficult to say what is the state of any particular nation today. Often, elements of each of these kinds of governance is found in a given country at a particular time. Still, it is important to be aware that such an “equivocation” is possible. Otherwise, we will end up saying rather foolish things like, “Democracy is always a good form of government,” or, “democracy is a horrible form of government.”

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

“Democracy—Always a Good Thing?”

In the contemporary world, we tend to think that democracy is always the best form of government. We are enchanted by the idea of self-governance for it seems to affirm the maturity of the citizens of a nation. Instead of being ruled by benign-monarchs or the landed-aristocracy, the citizens of a democracy are people who exercise self-mastery in a fully human manner. Well, at least this is what we tend to think of the matter.

Really, however, democracy is an ambiguous affair. Often, we use such single terms to name two different types of social arrangements. Such an equivocation is understandable. Whenever all (or at least most) of the people take part in political life, it seems like we have a kind of democracy. However, it is important to make a clearer distinction.

On the one hand, there can be a community that aims at the common good. In such a group, the people come together to have a political community that aims to fulfill human goals that could not be done by isolated individuals. Such a group will come together to establish educational institutions to preserve culture, regulate commerce in order to help normalize economic interactions, pass many laws that regulate our social interactions, and undertake many other affairs. Although all of these things benefit the individuals in the given society, such a group of self-governing people do not aim merely at the private satisfaction of the people. This kind of “democracy” works together, for common political goals.

On the other hand, there can be a community that merely aims at the private goods of the citizens. The Greek philosopher Aristotle remarked in his text, the Politics, that democracy was a government by the numerous poor people for the sake of those same people’s private goods. Clearly, he was using “democracy” in this sense. If the people of a nation only come together in order to assure their own private freedom and to receive benefits for themselves, a given society is this kind of so-called democracy.

Of course, it is difficult to say what is the state of any particular nation today. Often, elements of each of these kinds of governance is found in a given country at a particular time. Still, it is important to be aware that such an “equivocation” is possible. Otherwise, we will end up saying rather foolish things like, “Democracy is always a good form of government,” or, “democracy is a horrible form of government.”

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

Because of his naturally pale complexion, he was often perceived as a sickly child by doctors and teachers.

“Bach and German Hymnody”

\[31\] The great German composer, Johann Sebastian Bach was a member of a prodigiously talented musical family. \[32\] A significant number of Johann Sebastians ancestors and descendants were musicians of various levels of talent. \[33\] Although he was known for music of a variety of forms, one of his most enduring legacies is the repertoire of chorale music by which he improved and solidified the world of German congregational singing.

During the period after the Protestant Reformation, a number of hymns were written for use in the common worship of the Christians of the time. \[34\] The structured form of these compositions werewell suited for congregational singing although theywould sound strange to our contemporary ears. \[35\] The harmonies and meters of these hymns are very close in character to the music with which we are familiar. They lack some of the standard structural elements that we take for granted in this form of organized \[36\] Western music, these small differences would stand out to our sensibilities.

It was the great glory of Johann Sebastian Bach to have harmonized a great number of these hymns, often penning multiple such harmonies. \[37\] One solitary single melody might be made by Bach into three, four, or even five different harmonic compositions. \[38\] This amazing feat of musical prowess is no smalladdition to the original behest of Lutheran hymns that Bach had inherited from his fellow religious brethren. \[39\] Many of these harmonies remain to this day as classic renditions of these songs. \[40\] They are sung not only in the German world but inProtestant and Catholic services. \[41\] Indeed they are even sung in wholly secular concerts thanks to their great beauty!

Interestingly enough, Bach was more recognized as a talented performer, rather than composer, of music in his own lifetime. While he was still composing, knowledge of Bach’s work was limited to music connoisseurs who happened to be physically near places \[42\] he lived and worked. It was not until the early 19th century, when the first biography of Bach was published, that academic and popular interest \[43\] truly picked up steam. In the two centuries that followed, his works have continued to proliferate in both religious and purely musical contexts.

This great diffusion of one mans’ work is a testament to his prodigious talent. \[44\] It also stands as a testament to the fact that Bach’s work came at a pivotal time when the Protestant hymnody was crystallizing, as well as when Western harmonies were coming into a particular expression that is known as the Baroque. \[45\]

Choose the answer that best corrects section \[34\].

Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

That man take a walk every morning to stay in shape.

“On the Nature of Belief”

Belief and faith often are critiqued in a scientific culture. It can seem that mere belief is a replacement for science made available to soothe the ignorant masses. There is some truth to such accusations, and many people do use belief as a screen to cover their own ignorance about the truths of reality. Everyone should be aware, however, that almost every single human being have these kinds of “blind spots.” We all live with many things that we merely believe, all of which are so central to ones world view.

Even if we set aside all such types of beliefs, there still remains a broad terrain of human life in which faith and belief remain—even if we ignore all religious matters whatsoever. Imagine the scientist who’s work on brain neurons depends upon many discoveries made by many other people. Yes, if it were possible, it would be better for such a person to know all of the details that they accept merely at the word of other scientists. In all cases, seeing directly is more fulfilling than merely hearing about something.

However, is the scientist better off when he or she knows only what they have experienced directly. Although it is preferable that he or she knows such facts. However, it is impossible to investigate everything. Sometimes, one must extend one’s own vision with the vision of someone else. In a way, the person who thus “takes it on faith” gains a further vision.

Such faith always relies upon the credibility of the person who shares the experience, of course. For one person to believe on faith what another person says, it is presupposed that the other person is not a liar and actually could have experienced the matter in question. This means that even the “scientific believer” must take the risk of placing credibility in someone who has witnessed things that he or she has not seen. While this does not vindicate every kind of faith that people have had, it does provide a telling sign that faith, as such, is not always the refuge of the ignorant. Indeed, it is an important part of all of our lives, even the lives of scientists, who’s daring and investigative work is rarely criticized as being a refuge for ignorance!

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."

“On the Nature of Belief”

Belief and faith often are critiqued in a scientific culture. It can seem that mere belief is a replacement for science made available to soothe the ignorant masses. There is some truth to such accusations, and many people do use belief as a screen to cover their own ignorance about the truths of reality. Everyone should be aware, however, that almost every single human being have these kinds of “blind spots.” We all live with many things that we merely believe, all of which are so central to ones world view.

Even if we set aside all such types of beliefs, there still remains a broad terrain of human life in which faith and belief remain—even if we ignore all religious matters whatsoever. Imagine the scientist who’s work on brain neurons depends upon many discoveries made by many other people. Yes, if it were possible, it would be better for such a person to know all of the details that they accept merely at the word of other scientists. In all cases, seeing directly is more fulfilling than merely hearing about something.

However, is the scientist better off when he or she knows only what they have experienced directly. Although it is preferable that he or she knows such facts. However, it is impossible to investigate everything. Sometimes, one must extend one’s own vision with the vision of someone else. In a way, the person who thus “takes it on faith” gains a further vision.

Such faith always relies upon the credibility of the person who shares the experience, of course. For one person to believe on faith what another person says, it is presupposed that the other person is not a liar and actually could have experienced the matter in question. This means that even the “scientific believer” must take the risk of placing credibility in someone who has witnessed things that he or she has not seen. While this does not vindicate every kind of faith that people have had, it does provide a telling sign that faith, as such, is not always the refuge of the ignorant. Indeed, it is an important part of all of our lives, even the lives of scientists, who’s daring and investigative work is rarely criticized as being a refuge for ignorance!

Choose the answer that best corrects the bolded and underlined portion of the passage. If the bolded and underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."