Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Editing For Grammar
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Editing For GrammarQuestion 1 of 10

Last month, the transit authority considered three proposals for redesigning the downtown bus terminal. At Tuesday's public hearing, the planning director summarized the advantages and costs of each proposal.

Before the hearing began, staff completed its analysis, and briefing materials were available to every board member. The board postponed its final decision so residents could submit additional comments.

Which revision most accurately expresses that both staff actions were completed before the public hearing began?

Before the hearing began, staff reviewed all three proposals and prepares briefing packets for the board.
Before the hearing began, staff has reviewed all three proposals and had prepared briefing packets for the board.
Before the hearing began, staff had reviewed all three proposals and had prepared briefing packets for the board.
Before the hearing began, staff reviewed all three proposals and was preparing briefing packets for the board.
← Back to quizzes

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Editing For Grammar

Practice Editing For Grammar in Adult Literacy Advanced with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Editing For Grammar, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult Literacy Advanced.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Last month, the transit authority considered three proposals for redesigning the downtown bus terminal. At Tuesday's public hearing, the planning director summarized the advantages and costs of each proposal.

Before the hearing began, staff completed its analysis, and briefing materials were available to every board member. The board postponed its final decision so residents could submit additional comments.

Which revision most accurately expresses that both staff actions were completed before the public hearing began?

  1. Before the hearing began, staff reviewed all three proposals and prepares briefing packets for the board.
  2. Before the hearing began, staff has reviewed all three proposals and had prepared briefing packets for the board.
  3. Before the hearing began, staff had reviewed all three proposals and had prepared briefing packets for the board. (correct answer)
  4. Before the hearing began, staff reviewed all three proposals and was preparing briefing packets for the board.
Explanation: When a question asks you to place two past actions before another past event, you need the past perfect tense ("had + past participle"). Past perfect signals that something was completed prior to a specific point in the past — in this case, before the hearing began. Answer C is correct because both verbs use past perfect: "had reviewed" and "had prepared." This construction clearly establishes that staff finished both tasks — reviewing the proposals and preparing the briefing packets — before the hearing started. The parallel structure also makes the sentence grammatically clean and logically consistent. Answer A fails on two counts: "reviewed" uses simple past (acceptable for a single completed action), but "prepares" is present tense, which is both a tense error and a subject-verb agreement issue. Mixing present tense into a past narrative creates a timeline contradiction. Answer B uses "has reviewed," which is present perfect — a tense that connects past action to the present moment. Since the hearing is a past event, present perfect is inappropriate here. The second verb "had prepared" is correct, but the mismatched tenses make B internally inconsistent. Answer D uses simple past "reviewed," which doesn't signal that the action happened before another past event — it just places it generally in the past. Worse, "was preparing" is past progressive, implying the action was still ongoing when the hearing began, which contradicts the meaning you need to convey. Study tip: When you see phrases like "before," "after," or "by the time" linking two past events, flag them immediately — the earlier action almost always requires past perfect ("had + past participle") to show the correct sequence.

Question 2

A neighborhood learning center recently surveyed adults who use its employment and language programs. Many respondents said that the center closed before they returned home from work.

Because residents who work evening shifts had requested later access. The center extended its weekday hours. This change also created additional opportunities for volunteer tutors.

Which revision most effectively corrects the sentence fragment while preserving the intended relationship between the ideas?

  1. Residents who work evening shifts had requested later access, the center therefore extended its weekday hours.
  2. Because residents who work evening shifts had requested later access. The center therefore extended its weekday hours.
  3. Residents who work evening shifts requested later access; because the center extended its weekday hours.
  4. Because residents who work evening shifts had requested later access, the center extended its weekday hours. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence begins with "because," it sets up a dependent clause — a group of words that cannot stand alone as a complete thought. It needs an independent clause (a complete sentence) attached to it to form a grammatically whole sentence. The original passage breaks this rule by treating "Because residents who work evening shifts had requested later access" as its own sentence, which creates a fragment. The fix is straightforward: keep the "because" clause and connect it directly to the result it explains. Answer D does exactly this — "Because residents who work evening shifts had requested later access, the center extended its weekday hours." The dependent clause leads, a comma follows, and then the independent clause completes the thought. The causal relationship (requests → action) is preserved clearly and correctly. Answer A attempts a fix but creates a comma splice — two independent clauses joined only by a comma and the word "therefore." You need either a semicolon or a period to separate independent clauses this way. Answer B keeps the original fragment intact, simply adding "therefore" to the second sentence without fixing anything. The period after "access" still leaves a dangling dependent clause. Answer C is perhaps the trickiest trap: it places "because" in the middle, which reverses the logic and makes the second clause sound like the cause rather than the effect — and a semicolon cannot precede a dependent clause beginning with "because." A useful rule of thumb: whenever you see "because" starting a sentence on its own, ask yourself, what does this clause connect to? If nothing follows in the same sentence, it's a fragment that needs a main clause attached.

Question 3

A regional health agency has revised its procedure for responding to complaints. The procedure is intended to ensure that concerns are investigated promptly and documented consistently.

The revised policy requires supervisors to record the date of each complaint, notifying the appropriate department, and that they consult legal staff when necessary. Employees will receive training before the policy takes effect.

Which revision uses parallel grammatical structure for all three required actions?

  1. The revised policy requires supervisors to record each complaint's date, notifying the appropriate department, and consultation with legal staff when necessary.
  2. The revised policy requires supervisors to record each complaint's date, to notify the appropriate department, and consultation with legal staff when necessary.
  3. The revised policy requires supervisors to record each complaint's date, notify the appropriate department, and consult legal staff when necessary. (correct answer)
  4. The revised policy requires supervisors to record each complaint's date, notification of the appropriate department, and to consult legal staff when necessary.
Explanation: When a sentence lists multiple required actions, those actions must follow the same grammatical pattern — this is called parallel structure. Think of it like matching: if you start a list with one grammatical form, every item must use that same form. A common signal is the word "requires" followed by an infinitive ("to + verb"), which sets up the expectation that all list items will continue as infinitives. In this sentence, the verb "requires supervisors" establishes the pattern. Once you write "to record," you've committed to the infinitive form. The cleanest approach is to share the "to" across all three verbs: to record, [to] notify, [and to] consult. Option C does exactly this — "record," "notify," and "consult" are all bare infinitives that flow naturally from the implied "to," making the structure perfectly parallel. Option A mixes forms: "to record" (infinitive), "notifying" (gerund/participle), and "consultation" (noun) — three different grammatical structures in one list. Option B gets closer but stumbles at the finish line: it uses "to record," "to notify," and then switches to "consultation with legal staff" (a noun phrase), breaking the pattern in the final item. Option D is similarly inconsistent, mixing "record" (bare infinitive), "notification" (noun), and "to consult" (full infinitive) — no consistent form is maintained throughout. A useful strategy: when you spot a list in a sentence, underline each item and label its form (verb, noun, phrase). If the labels don't match, the sentence isn't parallel. On grammar questions, always trace the list back to its anchor word — here, "to" — and make sure every item connects to it the same way.

Question 4

The nonprofit's finance team compared the current expense ledger with receipts submitted by program managers. Priya, the senior accountant, conducted the final review before the annual report was published.

After comparing the two sets of records, several duplicate payments were discovered. Priya corrected the ledger and notified the affected vendors.

Which revision corrects the dangling introductory modifier in the first sentence of the second paragraph?

  1. After comparing the two sets of records, several duplicate payments became apparent during Priya's review.
  2. After comparing the two sets of records, the annual report revealed several duplicate payments to Priya.
  3. After comparing the two sets of records, several duplicate payments were discovered in the ledger by Priya.
  4. After comparing the two sets of records, Priya discovered several duplicate payments in the ledger. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you spot an introductory phrase beginning with "After [doing something]," ask yourself: who is doing that action? The subject performing the introductory action must immediately follow the comma. When it doesn't, you have a dangling modifier — the phrase "dangles" because it's attached to the wrong subject. In the original sentence, "After comparing the two sets of records" implies someone did the comparing, but the sentence never names that person as the grammatical subject. Instead, "duplicate payments" follow the comma — and payments cannot compare records. That's the dangling modifier. Choice D fixes this cleanly: "After comparing the two sets of records, Priya discovered several duplicate payments in the ledger." Priya is the one who compared the records, and she immediately follows the comma as the subject. The modifier now correctly modifies its intended noun. Choice A replaces the passive construction but still fails — "several duplicate payments became apparent" follows the comma, meaning the payments did the comparing, which is illogical. Choice B is even more problematic: it suggests the annual report compared the records and then revealed payments to Priya, which is both grammatically wrong and factually misleading. Choice C keeps the passive voice ("were discovered by Priya"), which technically names Priya but buries her at the end of the sentence rather than placing her as the subject immediately after the modifier — the dangling problem persists. Your strategy: whenever an introductory participial phrase appears, immediately identify the action, then check whether the very next noun after the comma is the person or thing performing that action. If not, the modifier is dangling.

Question 5

A community health network operates several neighborhood clinics. Each clinic has multiple coordinators who supervise volunteers, arrange transportation, and communicate with partner organizations.

One of the coordinators who oversees the neighborhood clinics have agreed to present the network's annual report. The remaining coordinators will answer questions after the presentation.

Which revision has correct agreement in both the relative clause and the main clause?

  1. One of the coordinators who oversees the neighborhood clinics has agreed to present the network's annual report.
  2. One of the coordinators who oversee the neighborhood clinics have agreed to present the network's annual report.
  3. One of the coordinators who oversee the neighborhood clinics has agreed to present the network's annual report. (correct answer)
  4. One of the coordinators who oversees the neighborhood clinics have agreed to present the network's annual report.
Explanation: When a sentence contains both a relative clause and a main clause, you need to check subject-verb agreement in each one separately — they can have different subjects requiring different verb forms. Start with the relative clause: "who oversee(s) the neighborhood clinics." The relative pronoun who refers back to coordinators (plural), not one. Because coordinators is plural, the verb must be plural: oversee, not oversees. Now check the main clause: "One of the coordinators... has/have agreed." Here the subject is one, a singular pronoun. Even though coordinators appears nearby, it's part of a prepositional phrase (of the coordinators) and cannot be the subject. Because the subject is singular, the verb must be singular: has, not have. That logic confirms C — "who oversee" (plural) paired with "has agreed" (singular) — as the only revision with correct agreement in both clauses. Looking at the wrong choices: A uses oversees (singular) in the relative clause, incorrectly making the verb agree with one instead of coordinators. B gets the relative clause right with oversee but then uses have agreed, incorrectly making the main verb agree with coordinators instead of the true subject, one. D makes both errors at once — oversees in the relative clause and have agreed in the main clause. A useful strategy: when you see "one of the [plural noun] who...," the verb inside the who clause agrees with the plural noun, but the main verb agrees with one. Keeping these two subjects separate will help you avoid the common trap of applying one agreement rule to both clauses.

Question 6

The library director invited two staff members to speak at a regional conference on digital access. Both employees had managed technology workshops and had assisted patrons with online public services.

The director asked Mateo and I to lead the presentation because she believed him and me had the most relevant experience. We began preparing examples from the library's recent training sessions.

Which revision uses the correct pronoun case in both parts of the sentence?

  1. The director asked Mateo and I to lead the presentation because she believed him and me had the most relevant experience.
  2. The director asked Mateo and me to lead the presentation because she believed he and I had the most relevant experience. (correct answer)
  3. The director asked Mateo and me to lead the presentation because she believed him and I had the most relevant experience.
  4. The director asked Mateo and I to lead the presentation because she believed he and me had the most relevant experience.
Explanation: Pronoun case questions test whether you're using the right form of a pronoun based on its job in the sentence. English pronouns have two main cases: subjective (used for subjects: I, he, she, they) and objective (used for objects: me, him, her, them). When two people are mentioned together, it's easy to choose the wrong form — so always test each pronoun alone. In the sentence, there are two pronoun decisions. First: "The director asked [Mateo and  ] to lead." Remove Mateo and ask — would you say "the director asked I to lead" or "the director asked me to lead"? Clearly me, because the pronoun is the object of "asked." Second: "she believed [  and  ] had the most relevant experience." Here the pronouns are the subjects of the clause "had the most relevant experience," so you need subjective case: he and I. Together: "she believed he and I had the most relevant experience." That makes B correct. A fails in both spots — "asked Mateo and I" uses subjective case where objective is needed, and "believed him and me" uses objective case where subjective is needed. C gets the first part right ("asked Mateo and me") but then uses "him and I" — mixing objective him with subjective I in a subject role is inconsistent and grammatically incorrect. D reverses the errors from C, using "asked Mateo and I" (wrong) and "believed he and me" (wrong). Your go-to strategy: strip out the other person and test the pronoun alone. "She believed I had experience" sounds right; "she believed me had experience" does not.

Question 7

Renovation of the municipal recreation center is six weeks behind schedule. Contractors attribute the delay to unexpected damage discovered beneath the original flooring.

The oversight committee has reviewed statements from the inspection team and the project manager. Neither the inspectors who visited the site twice nor the project manager believe that the delays has compromised public safety.

Which revision of the final sentence has correct subject-verb agreement throughout?

  1. Neither the inspectors who visited the site twice nor the project manager believe that the delays has compromised public safety.
  2. Neither the inspectors who visited the site twice nor the project manager believes that the delays have compromised public safety. (correct answer)
  3. Neither the inspectors who visited the site twice nor the project manager believe that the delays have compromised public safety.
  4. Neither the inspectors who visited the site twice nor the project manager believes that the delays has compromised public safety.
Explanation: This question tests two separate subject-verb agreement rules operating in the same sentence, so you need to check both the main clause and the subordinate clause independently. Start with the main clause: "Neither the inspectors...nor the project manager   that..." When a subject uses "neither/nor," the verb agrees with the noun closest to it — this is called the proximity rule. The noun closest to the verb is "the project manager," which is singular, so the verb must be "believes," not "believe." That immediately eliminates A and C, which incorrectly use "believe." Now check the subordinate clause: "the delays   compromised public safety." The subject here is "delays," which is plural, so the verb must be "have," not "has." That eliminates D, which pairs the plural "delays" with the singular "has." Only B — "Neither the inspectors who visited the site twice nor the project manager believes that the delays have compromised public safety" — gets both verbs right. To recap the traps: A fails on both verbs. C uses the correct "have" for delays but the wrong "believe" for the main verb. D uses the correct "believes" for the main verb but the wrong "has" for delays. Students often get the neither/nor rule right but overlook the second verb agreement error buried in the subordinate clause, or vice versa. Study tip: When a sentence contains multiple clauses, treat each clause as its own agreement check. Don't stop once you find one correct verb — scan the entire sentence for every subject-verb pairing.

Question 8

The town council approved construction of a public safety building in March. Two months later, officials received a cost estimate that was substantially higher than the preliminary projection.

Several council members acknowledged that earlier access to the estimate could have affected the March vote. They nevertheless concluded that canceling the project at its current stage would be too costly.

Which sentence correctly describes the unreal past condition and its possible past result?

  1. If the council had received the estimate earlier, it might have delayed approval of the project. (correct answer)
  2. If the council received the estimate earlier, it might delay approval of the project.
  3. If the council would have received the estimate earlier, it might have delayed approval of the project.
  4. If the council had received the estimate earlier, it might delay approval of the project.
Explanation: When a sentence describes something that didn't happen in the past and imagines what could have resulted, English requires the "unreal past conditional" structure. The formula is: if + had + past participle in the condition clause, and would/could/might + have + past participle in the result clause. Both verbs must live in the past to signal that the scenario is hypothetical and already over. Answer A follows this structure precisely: "had received" sets up the unreal past condition (the council didn't actually receive the estimate early), and "might have delayed" expresses the possible past result. The passage confirms this is hypothetical — council members acknowledged that earlier access could have affected the vote, meaning it didn't. A is correct. Answer B uses simple past "received" and present-tense "might delay," which describes a real or recurring present situation — not a past hypothetical. It misreads the timeline entirely. Answer C uses "would have received" in the if-clause, which is a common error. The word would belongs in the result clause, not the condition clause. Saying "if the council would have received" is grammatically nonstandard in formal written English, even though you may hear it in conversation. Answer D pairs the correct condition ("had received") with the wrong result form: "might delay" is present tense, not past. That mismatch breaks the parallel structure the unreal past conditional requires — both clauses must reflect the past. Your strategy: memorize the two-part formula — if + had + [verb] / might/would/could + have + [verb] — and check that both clauses are fully in the past before selecting your answer.

Question 9

Enrollment in the county's apprenticeship initiative increased after local manufacturers began promoting the program. Applications were especially strong among adults seeking to change careers.

Demand for training remained high, however funding did not increase during the fiscal year. As a result, qualified applicants sometimes waited several months for an available placement.

Which revision correctly joins the two independent clauses in the first sentence of the second paragraph?

  1. Demand for training remained high; however, funding did not increase during the fiscal year. (correct answer)
  2. Demand for training remained high, however, funding did not increase during the fiscal year.
  3. Demand for training remained high; however funding, did not increase during the fiscal year.
  4. Demand for training remained high. However funding did not increase during the fiscal year.
Explanation: When two independent clauses are joined by a conjunctive adverb like however, therefore, or nevertheless, you need specific punctuation: a semicolon before the conjunctive adverb and a comma after it. This question tests whether you can apply that rule correctly. Choice A handles this perfectly — "Demand for training remained high; however, funding did not increase during the fiscal year." The semicolon separates the two complete thoughts, and the comma after however sets it off as a transitional expression. This is the correct answer. Choice B is the most tempting trap. It places commas on both sides of however, which creates a comma splice — two independent clauses joined only by a comma. A comma alone is never strong enough to join two independent clauses; you need a semicolon or a coordinating conjunction. Choice C places the semicolon correctly before however but then misplaces the comma after funding instead of after however. This breaks the sentence's logic and interrupts the subject-verb relationship ("funding did not increase"). Choice D turns the sentence into two separate sentences, which is grammatically legal but not what the question asks for — it asks for a revision that joins the clauses. Additionally, D omits the comma after however, which is required when it opens a clause. A quick tip to remember: conjunctive adverbs (however, moreover, consequently) are not the same as coordinating conjunctions (but, and, or). You cannot use a comma alone before a conjunctive adverb — always reach for the semicolon.

Question 10

A civic engagement committee surveyed residents about proposed changes to a riverside park. Before releasing its findings, the committee corrected several errors in the survey results.

The committee then sent the results to an advisory panel. The panel will use the corrected results when preparing recommendations for the city council.

Which sentence combines the information in the second paragraph while clearly identifying who revised and who will use the results?

  1. After they had revised them, the committee sent the survey results to the advisory panel, and they will use them in its recommendations.
  2. After revising the survey results, the committee sent them to the advisory panel, which will use the results in its recommendations. (correct answer)
  3. After being revised, the committee sent the survey results to the advisory panel, which will use them in its recommendations.
  4. The committee revised the survey results and sent them to the advisory panel, who will use it in their recommendations.
Explanation: When a sentence combines information from multiple sources, you need to watch for two grammar traps: pronoun ambiguity (unclear they/them references) and dangling modifiers (introductory phrases that don't logically connect to the subject that follows). Option B handles both problems cleanly. "After revising the survey results" correctly links to "the committee" — the committee did the revising. The pronoun "them" clearly refers to the results, and "which will use the results" unambiguously identifies the advisory panel as the one making recommendations. Every actor is clear, every reference is traceable. Option A fails on pronoun clarity. "After they had revised them" — who is they? The committee or the panel? Later, "they will use them in its recommendations" mixes plural they with singular its, creating a contradiction that muddles meaning entirely. Option C contains a dangling modifier. "After being revised" implies the subject of the main clause did the revising — but the subject is "the committee," and committees don't revise themselves. The results were revised, so the sentence structure misrepresents the logic. Option D gets the committee's actions right but stumbles at the end. "The advisory panel, who will use it" incorrectly uses who for an organization (which requires which) and uses the singular it to refer to the plural results. The pronoun mismatch makes this grammatically incorrect. As a study habit, always trace every pronoun back to its antecedent and mentally test every introductory phrase by asking: does the subject of this sentence actually perform this action?