Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Relative Clauses And Embedded Phrases
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Relative Clauses And Embedded PhrasesQuestion 1 of 10

A licensing office accepts applications throughout the year. Only applications received after a quarterly deadline are moved to the next review cycle; applications received on time remain in the current cycle.

Which sentence uses a reduced relative clause to express the rule accurately and concisely?

Applications submitted after the quarterly deadline will be reviewed during the next cycle.
Applications, submitted after the quarterly deadline, will be reviewed during the next cycle.
Submitting after the quarterly deadline, applications will be reviewed during the next cycle.
Applications having submitted after the quarterly deadline will be reviewed during the next cycle.
← Back to quizzes

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Relative Clauses And Embedded Phrases

Practice Relative Clauses And Embedded Phrases 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 Relative Clauses And Embedded Phrases, 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

A licensing office accepts applications throughout the year. Only applications received after a quarterly deadline are moved to the next review cycle; applications received on time remain in the current cycle.

Which sentence uses a reduced relative clause to express the rule accurately and concisely?

  1. Applications submitted after the quarterly deadline will be reviewed during the next cycle. (correct answer)
  2. Applications, submitted after the quarterly deadline, will be reviewed during the next cycle.
  3. Submitting after the quarterly deadline, applications will be reviewed during the next cycle.
  4. Applications having submitted after the quarterly deadline will be reviewed during the next cycle.
Explanation: When a question asks about reduced relative clauses, you're being tested on your ability to trim a full relative clause ("which were submitted after the quarterly deadline") down to just a participial phrase ("submitted after the quarterly deadline") placed directly after the noun it modifies — with no extra punctuation and no grammatical distortion. A reduced relative clause works by dropping the relative pronoun and auxiliary verb, leaving a past participle immediately after the noun. In choice A, "submitted after the quarterly deadline" follows "applications" without commas, correctly identifying which applications get moved to the next cycle. This is both grammatically sound and precisely matches the rule: only late applications shift cycles. A is your answer. Choice B looks similar but adds commas around "submitted after the quarterly deadline." Those commas signal a nonrestrictive clause — meaning it describes all applications, as if every application is submitted late. That contradicts the passage, which distinguishes between on-time and late submissions. The punctuation changes the meaning entirely. Choice C opens with "Submitting after the quarterly deadline," a dangling participial phrase. Grammatically, this implies the applications are doing the submitting — which is nonsensical. The phrase is misattached and creates a logical error. Choice D uses "having submitted," which implies the applications themselves performed the act of submitting. Applications are objects, not agents — they are submitted by someone. This is a voice error; the passive form "submitted" (as in A) is correct here. Your takeaway: watch for commas around participial phrases — they signal "all of them" (nonrestrictive), while no commas signal "only some of them" (restrictive). That distinction often changes meaning dramatically.

Question 2

A city is comparing several equipment suppliers. The contract should go only to a supplier with a safety record that meets every requirement.

Which sentence uses a relative clause to state the selection criterion most precisely?

  1. The city should select the supplier which its safety record meets every stated requirement.
  2. The city should select the supplier, whose safety record meets every stated requirement.
  3. The city should select the supplier who's safety record meets every stated requirement.
  4. The city should select the supplier whose safety record meets every stated requirement. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks about relative clauses and selection criteria, you're being tested on two skills at once: grammar precision and punctuation logic. A relative clause modifies a noun and begins with a relative pronoun (who, whose, which, that). The key here is choosing the right pronoun form and deciding whether the clause is restrictive (no commas) or non-restrictive (with commas). The passage makes clear that only suppliers meeting every requirement qualify — this is a defining, restrictive condition. That means the relative clause should have no commas and use the correct pronoun. Answer D — "the supplier whose safety record meets every stated requirement" — does exactly this. Whose correctly shows possession (the supplier's safety record), the clause is restrictive (no commas), and the grammar is clean and precise. Here's why the others fall short. Answer A uses which with awkward phrasing ("which its safety record") — this double-subject construction is grammatically broken; you can't use both which and its to refer to the same noun. Answer B adds a comma before whose, making the clause non-restrictive. This implies all suppliers have qualifying records — the opposite of what the city needs, since it's narrowing down candidates. Answer C uses who's, which is a contraction of who is ("the supplier who is safety record") — a classic trap. Whenever you see who's used before a noun, it's wrong; possession requires whose. A reliable study tip: always test who's by expanding it to who is. If the sentence breaks, switch to whose. This single check eliminates a very common error.

Question 3

Several inspectors review permit applications. Nadia is one member of that group, and she is the only inspector who also translates supporting documents into Arabic.

Which sentence uses correct subject-verb agreement in both relative clauses while preserving these facts?

  1. Nadia is one of the inspectors who reviews permit applications and the only one who also translate supporting documents.
  2. Nadia is one of the inspectors who review permit applications and the only one who also translates supporting documents. (correct answer)
  3. Nadia is one of the inspectors who reviews permit applications and the only one who also translates supporting documents.
  4. Nadia is one of the inspectors who review permit applications and the only one who also translate supporting documents.
Explanation: When a relative clause follows a phrase like "one of the [plural noun]," the verb in that clause must agree with the plural noun — not with "one." This is because the clause describes the whole group. However, when the phrase is "the only one of the [plural noun]," the clause describes a single individual, so the verb must be singular. Mastering this distinction is the key to this question. In the correct answer, B, the first clause reads "inspectors who review" — plural verb matching "inspectors," since Nadia is one member of a group that collectively reviews applications. The second clause reads "the only one who also translates" — singular verb matching "the only one," since Nadia alone performs the translation. Both clauses are grammatically correct and preserve the original facts accurately. Choice A gets the second clause wrong: "the only one who also translate" uses a plural verb after a singular antecedent ("the only one"), which breaks subject-verb agreement. Choice C reverses the error in the first clause: "inspectors who reviews" incorrectly applies a singular verb to the plural noun "inspectors." Choice D gets both clauses wrong — "inspectors who review" is correct, but "the only one who also translate" again mismatches a plural verb with a singular subject, making the whole sentence faulty. A useful tip: whenever you spot "one of the [plural noun] who," ask yourself whether "the only" appears before it. Without "the only," match the verb to the plural noun. With "the only," match the verb to the singular "one." That one-word signal changes everything.

Question 4

An agency announcement reads, "The agency delayed the hearing, which frustrated residents." An editor wants to remove any uncertainty about the antecedent and state explicitly that the decision to delay caused the frustration. The revision must retain a relative clause.

Which revision most clearly conveys the intended cause-and-effect relationship?

  1. The agency, which frustrated many residents, delayed the scheduled hearing.
  2. The agency delayed the hearing that frustrated many residents in attendance.
  3. The agency delayed the hearing, a decision that frustrated many residents. (correct answer)
  4. The agency delayed the hearing, which had already frustrated many residents before the postponement.
Explanation: When a pronoun or relative pronoun like which appears in a sentence, it must have a clear antecedent — the noun it refers back to. The original sentence ("the agency delayed the hearing, which frustrated residents") is ambiguous because which could refer to either "the agency" or "the hearing." The editor's goal is to eliminate that ambiguity while keeping a relative clause and explicitly naming the cause of frustration: the decision to delay. Choice C accomplishes exactly this. By inserting the noun phrase "a decision," the sentence creates an appositive that renames what just happened, and then "that frustrated many residents" becomes a relative clause modifying "a decision" — not an ambiguous pronoun floating between two nouns. The cause-and-effect chain is crystal clear: the decision caused the frustration. Choice A moves "which frustrated many residents" to modify "the agency" itself, implying the agency is inherently frustrating rather than that a specific action caused frustration. That shifts meaning and loses the cause-and-effect link to the delay. Choice B uses a relative clause ("that frustrated many residents") to modify "the hearing," suggesting the hearing itself frustrated residents — not the act of delaying it. This misplaces the cause entirely. Choice D introduces "which had already frustrated many residents before the postponement," which is internally contradictory and confuses the timeline rather than clarifying the cause. The key strategy here: when a question asks you to clarify a relative clause's antecedent, look for the answer that names the cause explicitly as a noun before the relative clause modifies it. C does this perfectly with "a decision that frustrated."

Question 5

A housing board adopted a policy establishing the conditions that allow tenants to request an independent inspection. The writer wants formal wording that emphasizes those governing conditions.

Which sentence uses an embedded relative phrase to express that relationship most precisely?

  1. The board adopted a policy by which tenants may request an independent inspection.
  2. The board adopted a policy in which tenants may request an independent inspection.
  3. The board adopted a policy under which tenants may request an independent inspection. (correct answer)
  4. The board adopted a policy wherein the tenants' request of an independent inspection is mentioned.
Explanation: When a question asks about formal, precise wording for a policy that governs conditions, you should focus on which preposition best captures a hierarchical, controlling relationship — where the policy sits above the tenants and authorizes their actions under its authority. "Under which" in option C is the strongest choice here. In formal and legal writing, "under" signals that something operates within the authority or framework of something else — tenants may act under the terms of the policy. This mirrors language you'd find in contracts, legislation, and board resolutions ("under this agreement," "under federal law"). The embedded relative phrase "under which tenants may request an independent inspection" precisely captures the governing relationship the passage describes. Option A ("by which") indicates a mechanism or means — how something is done — rather than governing conditions. It would work better for a policy by which inspections are conducted, not one that permits them. Option B ("in which") is the weakest choice; it treats the policy as a container, as if the inspection simply exists inside it, with no sense of authority or conditionality. Option D ("wherein the tenants' request... is mentioned") is awkward and vague — saying a request is mentioned in a policy dramatically undersells the authorizing, conditional nature described in the passage, and the phrasing sounds bureaucratically clumsy rather than precise. So C is correct because "under which" uniquely conveys authority and governance rather than mere location, method, or reference. Study tip: In formal-writing questions, prepositions carry significant weight. Memorize the distinction: in which = location, by which = mechanism, under which = authority or governing conditions.

Question 6

A meeting summary states, "The coordinator discussed the complaint with the supervisor who had arrived late." The writer knows that the coordinator arrived late, not the supervisor.

Which revision places the relative clause so that it clearly conveys the writer's intended meaning?

  1. The coordinator, who had arrived late, discussed the complaint with the supervisor. (correct answer)
  2. The coordinator discussed the complaint with the supervisor, who had arrived late.
  3. Arriving late, the complaint was discussed by the coordinator with the supervisor.
  4. The coordinator discussed, who had arrived late, the complaint with the supervisor.
Explanation: When a sentence contains a relative clause — a phrase beginning with "who," "which," or "that" — it must appear immediately after the noun it describes. If it doesn't, the clause attaches to the wrong noun, creating a misplaced modifier. That's exactly what the original sentence does: "the supervisor who had arrived late" makes it sound like the supervisor was late, when the writer means the coordinator was late. Choice A fixes this by moving "who had arrived late" directly after "coordinator" — the noun it's meant to describe. The sentence now reads The coordinator, who had arrived late, discussed the complaint with the supervisor. The meaning is unambiguous and grammatically sound, making A the correct answer. Choice B does the opposite of what's needed — it places "who had arrived late" directly after "supervisor," which reinforces the original confusion rather than resolving it. Choice C attempts a participial phrase ("Arriving late") but creates a dangling modifier: grammatically, "the complaint" appears to have arrived late, since it follows the opening phrase. This is both awkward and inaccurate. Choice D inserts the relative clause mid-sentence between "discussed" and "the complaint," which interrupts the verb phrase and doesn't logically attach the clause to either person — it's grammatically broken and confusing. A reliable strategy: whenever you need to identify who a descriptive clause refers to, mentally draw an arrow from the clause back to the nearest preceding noun. If that noun isn't the one the writer intends, the clause needs to move. Proximity equals ownership when it comes to modifiers.

Question 7

A public-works announcement discusses the Easton Bridge, a uniquely named structure. Its opening date is background information rather than information needed to identify which bridge will close.

Which sentence correctly embeds the background information?

  1. The Easton Bridge, which opened in 1968, will close for structural repairs in August. (correct answer)
  2. The Easton Bridge which opened in 1968 will close for structural repairs in August.
  3. The Easton Bridge, which opened in 1968 will close for structural repairs in August.
  4. The Easton Bridge that opened in 1968, will close for structural repairs in August.
Explanation: When a clause adds extra detail about something already clearly identified, it functions as a nonrestrictive clause and must be set off with commas on both sides. This question tests whether you recognize that "which opened in 1968" is background detail — not information needed to identify which bridge we're talking about, since the bridge already has a unique name: the Easton Bridge. Choice A is correct. The clause "which opened in 1968" is properly wrapped in two commas, signaling that the information is supplemental. The word "which" is also the right choice here — it introduces nonrestrictive clauses, while "that" introduces restrictive ones. Remove the clause entirely and the sentence still works perfectly: The Easton Bridge will close for structural repairs in August. Choice B drops both commas around the clause. Without commas, the clause reads as restrictive — as if there are multiple Easton Bridges and you need the 1968 detail to know which one. That contradicts the passage's premise of a uniquely named structure. Choice C includes only one comma, placed after "1968" but missing after "Bridge." This creates an unbalanced construction that breaks the sentence apart incorrectly, making "which opened in 1968 will close" read as a single tangled idea. Choice D uses "that" instead of "which," which signals a restrictive clause — one that defines or limits meaning. Adding a comma after "1968" without an opening comma makes things worse, producing a hybrid that follows neither restrictive nor nonrestrictive rules correctly. A handy rule: if the clause starts with "which," you almost always need commas around it. If it starts with "that," no commas are used.

Question 8

During an internal audit, Lena reviewed the quarterly invoices and discovered several duplicate charges in the freight account. The final report must make clear that Lena performed the review.

Which revision uses the introductory embedded phrase without creating a misplaced or dangling modifier?

  1. After reviewing the quarterly invoices, Lena noticed several duplicate charges in the freight account. (correct answer)
  2. After reviewing the quarterly invoices, several duplicate charges were noticed by Lena in the freight account.
  3. After reviewing the quarterly invoices, Lena's inspection revealed several duplicate charges in the freight account.
  4. While reviewing the quarterly invoices, the freight account showed Lena several duplicate charges.
Explanation: When a sentence opens with a participial phrase like "After reviewing the quarterly invoices," that phrase must immediately precede the noun it describes — the person actually doing the reviewing. If the wrong noun follows, you have a dangling or misplaced modifier, one of the most commonly tested grammar errors at this level. Choice A is the correct revision. "After reviewing the quarterly invoices" is immediately followed by "Lena," making it clear that Lena performed the review. The subject of the modifying phrase and the subject of the main clause match perfectly — no ambiguity, no error. Here's why the other choices fail. Choice B places "several duplicate charges" right after the introductory phrase, implying that the duplicate charges were doing the reviewing — which is impossible. This is a classic dangling modifier. Choice C uses "Lena's inspection" as the subject following the phrase. A possessive noun ("Lena's") cannot serve as the subject that the modifier attaches to; only "Lena" herself can be the actor who reviewed the invoices. This creates a dangling modifier disguised by the possessive. Choice D follows the phrase with "the freight account," suggesting the account was reviewing the invoices — another dangling modifier that actually reverses the logic of the sentence entirely. A reliable strategy: after any introductory participial phrase, ask yourself who is performing the action in that phrase? That person (or thing) must be the very next noun in the sentence. If it isn't, the modifier is dangling. Train yourself to spot possessives and passive constructions right after opening phrases — both are common traps on this exam.

Question 9

A benefits notice is intended to state that only employees who completed the required safety course before May 1 qualify for the transportation allowance.

Which sentence most accurately expresses the intended eligibility rule?

  1. Employees, who completed the required safety course before May 1, are eligible for the transportation allowance.
  2. Employees who completed the required safety course before May 1 are eligible for the transportation allowance. (correct answer)
  3. Employees who completed the required safety course before May 1, they are eligible for the transportation allowance.
  4. Employees whom completed the required safety course before May 1 are eligible for the transportation allowance.
Explanation: When a sentence contains a relative clause that limits which group you're talking about, that clause must not be set off by commas. This question is really testing whether you understand the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses — a distinction that changes meaning entirely. The intended rule is that only employees who completed the course before May 1 qualify. That "who completed the required safety course before May 1" clause is doing essential work: it restricts the group to a specific subset of employees. Because the clause is restrictive, it must appear without commas. That makes B the correct answer — it accurately conveys that not all employees qualify, only the ones who met the deadline. Here's why each other option fails. A places commas around the relative clause, turning it into a non-restrictive clause. Grammatically, this implies that all employees completed the course and that this is just additional background information — the opposite of the intended rule. C is a run-on called a comma splice fused with a pronoun repetition error: "they" restates "employees" unnecessarily, creating a structural break that makes the sentence grammatically invalid. D uses "whom" instead of "who." Since the relative pronoun here is the subject of the clause (it performs the action "completed"), the correct form is "who," not "whom." A helpful tip: whenever you see a relative clause, ask yourself, "Is this clause essential to identifying which people or things I mean?" If yes — no commas. If it's just bonus detail — use commas. Mastering this distinction will help you catch meaning-changing punctuation errors quickly.

Question 10

A clinic newsletter has already identified Mara Chen by name. The phrase describing her position adds supplementary information. The editor wants to set off that phrase with commas.

Which sentence correctly punctuates the embedded appositive phrase?

  1. Mara Chen, the clinic's new operations director will lead the scheduling review.
  2. Mara Chen the clinic's new operations director will lead the scheduling review.
  3. Mara Chen the clinic's new operations director, will lead the scheduling review.
  4. Mara Chen, the clinic's new operations director, will lead the scheduling review. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a noun phrase renames or describes a nearby noun and adds extra (non-essential) information, it's called an appositive phrase. Because the phrase is supplementary — meaning the sentence is complete and clear without it — it must be set off with a comma on both sides. Think of the commas as parentheses: they signal "this is bonus information, not essential to identifying who we're talking about." In this sentence, "Mara Chen" already fully identifies the person. The phrase "the clinic's new operations director" simply adds descriptive context. Since the newsletter has already named her, this phrase is non-restrictive (non-essential), and both a comma before and after it are required. That's exactly what D does — it places a comma after "Mara Chen" and another after "operations director," correctly bracketing the appositive. D is your answer. Choice A puts a comma only before the appositive phrase, leaving no comma after it. This breaks the bracketing rule — one comma alone creates a lopsided pause that confuses the sentence's structure. Choice B omits both commas entirely, running the appositive directly into the surrounding sentence with no punctuation signal at all, making it look like one long, uninterrupted noun string. Choice C flips the error: it places a comma only after the appositive phrase, leaving no comma before it — the mirror-image mistake of A. A useful rule of thumb: if you can lift the phrase out of the sentence and it still makes sense, it needs commas on both ends — never just one. Always check both sides.