ACT English › Pronoun-Antecedent Number Errors
Adapted from The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli (1532)
Now, if you will consider what was the nature of the government of Darius, you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk. Therefore it was only necessarily for Alexander, first to overthrow him in the field, and then to take the country from him. After this victory, Darius being killed, the state remained secure in Alexander’s power, for the reasons noted earlier. If his successors had been united they would have enjoyed it securely and at their ease, for there was no tumults raised in the kingdom except those they provoked themselves. However, it is impossible to hold with such tranquility states constituted like that of France. Hence arose those frequent rebellions against the Roman’s in Spain, France, and Greece, owing to the many principalities there were in these latter states, of which the Romans always held an insecure possession; however, with the power and long continuance of the empire, the memory of them passed away, and the Romans then became secure possessors. When fighting afterwards amongst themselves, each one was able to attach to himself his own parts of the country, according to the authority he had assumed there; and the family of the former lord being exterminated, none other than the Romans were acknowledged.
When these things are remembered, no one will marvel at the ease with which Alexander held the Empire of Asia or at the difficulties that others have had to keep an acquisition. This is not occasioned by the little or abundance of ability in the conqueror but, instead, by the want of uniformity in the subject state.
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the passage. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
NO CHANGE
to attach to themselves their own parts
to attach to themselves his own part
to attach themselves to their own parts
to attach to themselves his own parts
As written, there are no issues with the form of the sentence. The options offered as alternatives all change the (grammatical) number of the pronouns from singular to plural. The sentence speaks of "each one" attaching areas. Therefore, the correlated pronouns "himself" and "his" should remain in the singular.
Why Text Messaging Is a Good Thing by Chelci Spiegel
Because text messaging does not require voice it is far less obtrusive in public places. When I was standing in line at the grocery store one of the ladies were using their phone while waiting for their turn. I heard her entire life story her boy troubles, her work troubles her friend troubles and her money troubles. It was very distracting. With texting people can vent all their frustrations to someone privately. If I am trying to set a date for a barbeque, I can text my neighbor to work out details rather than let the entire she store know my weekend plans. Texting is a way to conduct private business in public places.
What would make the underlined portion grammatically correct?
NO CHANGE
a person can vent all their frustration
people can vent all there frustration
people can vent all they're frustration
a person can vent all your frustration
"Their" is the possessive pronoun: "frustrations" belongs to "people," making it possessive. "They're" means "they are," and "there" means a place.
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
Each of the performers has an idea for their performance.
his or her
NO CHANGE
hers
his
its
In order to agree in number, a singular indefinite pronoun like "each" should take a singular pronoun referent like "his or her." The singular pronoun "each" is the subject of the sentence, not the plural "performers," so the plural pronoun referent "their" does not agree. Since the gender of the performers is not known, it is correct to use "his or her" rather than simply using "his." Since the performers are people, it is incorrect to use "its," which should refer to objects.
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
She moved the jar of pickles from their place on the condiment table.
its
NO CHANGE
his
her
theirs
A pronoun must agree in number with the antecedent it replaces. In this case, the noun "jar" is the antecedent. "Jar" is singular, so the pronoun that replaces it must also be singular. A phrase or clause between the antecedent and the pronoun, such as "of pickles," does not change the antecedent's number. In this case, even though the word "pickles" is plural, the antecedent, "jar," that the pronoun replaces is still singular, so it should be replaced by the singular neutral pronoun "its."
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
Last year, one of my favorite Broadway shows were Les Miserables.
shows was
show were
show was
NO CHANGE
shows they were
The subject is singular, even though the word "shows" is plural-the only show that is being referred to is "one of" the favorites so you need the singular pronoun "was" instead of the plural pronoun "were" and the word "shows" remains plural because you are selecting one (Les Miserables) from a group.
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?”
What is the best form of the underlined selection, “It is a question that has been”?
They are questions that have been
It is a question that has been
It is a question that is
They are a question that have been
In order to find the correct answer, two things must be noted. Looking at the previous two sentences, the referent for the pronoun is "questions." It must be plural—"they," not "it." Likewise, note that the option "They are a question that have been" does not have agreement between "they" and "a question." The first is plural, while the second is singular.
“Mathematics and Learning”
What subject should be learned first? The question rightly troubles anyone who’s interest is in education. Of course, young children often must learn in a very basic and rote fashion, applying their apt memorization skills to simple tasks that will serve them very well in later years when they go one to apply such knowledge to more complex topics. However, when the time comes to designing curricula, an important question must be answered for older students, namely “What is most important first topic in these students’s education?”
An argument can be made for the use of mathematics as a tool for teaching students how to reason more clearly. This is not because mathematics is the basis of all knowledge. Indeed not. There are many important subjects including not only the humanities like poetry and history but sciences like biology and physiology too. These topics are not strictly speaking mathematical in nature, even though mathematics can be used in it in many ways.
Our minds are best geared for learning things that we can sense, things that are visible and tangible. Although mathematics is abstract, it can begin with this kind of sense derived experience. Beginning with simple everyday examples, children can be taught the more abstract and difficult skills that must be learned for the sake of the development of mathematical skills. In the process of learning these topics, the children will begin to learn important rules about reasoning. He or she will learn how several propositions can serve as the basis for conclusions. They will learn how certain properties are related to various geometric figures and arithmetical rules. Although much of this will be memorized at first, with time, they will have the opportunity to see that human reasoning in mathematical subjects is orderly and logical. On the basis of such “logical experience,” young learners can then begin to be taught the rules of logic that they have been using all along. As the medievals used to say, they could go from logica utens, logic used in other subjects, to logica docens logic taught, as a unique, and separate subject.
Choose the answer that best corrects the underlined portion of the sentence. If the underlined portion is correct as written, choose "NO CHANGE."
They will learn how
NO CHANGE
He or she will learn that
He will learn how
He or she had learned how
Notice that the referent for "he or she" is actually "the children." Although "he or she" contains two words, it is actually a singular expression. This is because it indicates only one or the other of the two people, not both at the same time. Therefore, you need the plural pronoun "they" instead of the singular "he or she."
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.
What is the best form of the underlined selection, "does not see how the answer to it can decide offhand"?
does not see how the answer to them can decide offhand
NO CHANGE
does not see how the answer to they can decide offhand
do not see how the answer to them can decide offhand
As written, the only issue with the sentence is the agreement between "it" and its referent. Notice that earlier in the sentence, the author speaks of the questions that were asked earlier. In the second independent clause (i.e. after the "and"), the author uses the pronoun "it" to refer back to these "questions." However, since "questions" is plural, the pronoun must be plural as well. Therefore, "them" is a better option. Note_,_however, that the option containing "they" is incorrect because the pronoun is the object of the preposition "to." "They" as the object of a preposition or verb must take the form "them."
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.
What is the best form of the underlined selection, "by itself are insufficient"?
by themselves are insufficient
NO CHANGE
by itself is insufficient
by themselves is insufficient
There are two facts to consider here. First, the reflexive pronoun "itself" is singular while referring to the plural subject "facts." Therefore, it must be changed to "themselves." Now, you must be careful regarding the verb. To see the proper form of the verb, simplify the subordinate clause in which our phrase is found: "The . . . facts . . . are . . ." The subject is plural, meaning that you need the plural form "are," not "is."
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. One of the answer choices reproduces the underlined portion as it is written in the sentence.
The loss of a parent at a young age can traumatize a person for the rest of your life.
for the rest of his or her life.
for the rest of your life.
on the rest of your life.
for the rest of yourself's life.
for the rest of your living.
The use of "your" at the end of the sentence is confusing, as the only reference in the sentence is "a person," and the second person pronoun has no place in the sentence. Changing "your" to a third person possessive pronoun will straighten out this problem. Because we do not know whether the "person" in question is male or female, we should use the phrase "his or her." The correct answer choice, therefore, is "for the rest of his or her life."