Adult Literacy Intermediate Quiz: Correcting Sentence Errors
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Correcting Sentence ErrorsQuestion 1 of 10

The following sentence appears in a work log describing a task completed yesterday: "Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviews each amount and compared it with the receipt."

Which revision makes all the verb tenses consistent with the time of the event?

Before Mara sends the invoice, she reviewed each amount and compared it with the receipt.
Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviews each amount and compares it with the receipt.
Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviewed each amount and compared it with the receipt.
Before Mara had sent the invoice, she reviews each amount and compared it with the receipt.
← Back to quizzes

Adult Literacy Intermediate Quiz

Adult Literacy Intermediate Quiz: Correcting Sentence Errors

Practice Correcting Sentence Errors in Adult Literacy Intermediate 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 Correcting Sentence Errors, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult Literacy Intermediate.

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

The following sentence appears in a work log describing a task completed yesterday: "Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviews each amount and compared it with the receipt."

Which revision makes all the verb tenses consistent with the time of the event?

  1. Before Mara sends the invoice, she reviewed each amount and compared it with the receipt.
  2. Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviews each amount and compares it with the receipt.
  3. Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviewed each amount and compared it with the receipt. (correct answer)
  4. Before Mara had sent the invoice, she reviews each amount and compared it with the receipt.
Explanation: When a sentence describes a past event, all the verbs need to match that past-tense setting — this is called verb tense consistency. The work log tells you the task happened yesterday, so every action in the sentence should be in simple past tense. Look at the original sentence: "she reviews each amount and compared it." The word "reviews" is present tense while "compared" is past tense — they don't match each other or the past-tense context. The correct revision is C: "Before Mara sent the invoice, she reviewed each amount and compared it with the receipt." Every verb — sent, reviewed, compared — is now in simple past tense, consistently reflecting actions that occurred yesterday. Choice A fails because "sends" is present tense, making the invoice-sending sound like it happens now rather than yesterday. Choice B keeps "reviews" and adds "compares," both present tense — this actually introduces a second inconsistency rather than fixing the original problem. Choice D uses "had sent," which is past perfect tense. Past perfect signals an action completed before another past action, and while that construction can be grammatically correct in certain contexts, it's unnecessary and awkward here. More importantly, it still leaves "reviews" in present tense, so the sentence remains inconsistent. A handy strategy: when you spot a verb tense question, first identify when the events happen (past, present, or future), then check every verb in the sentence against that time frame. If even one verb is off, the sentence needs revision.

Question 2

A safety poster includes this warning: "Call the supervisor immediately do not attempt to repair a smoking machine."

Which revision corrects the run-on while preserving both commands?

  1. Call the supervisor immediately, do not attempt to repair a smoking machine.
  2. Call the supervisor immediately; do not attempt to repair a smoking machine. (correct answer)
  3. Because a machine begins smoking; call the supervisor and do not attempt repairs.
  4. If a machine begins smoking. Call the supervisor and do not attempt repairs.
Explanation: When a sentence tries to join two complete thoughts without proper punctuation or a connecting word, it becomes a run-on sentence. Your job here is to find the fix that separates the two commands — "Call the supervisor immediately" and "do not attempt to repair a smoking machine" — without losing or distorting either one. A semicolon is the perfect tool for this situation. It connects two independent clauses (complete thoughts that could stand alone as sentences) while keeping them closely linked. Answer B does exactly this: "Call the supervisor immediately; do not attempt to repair a smoking machine." Both commands survive intact, and the semicolon signals a clean, logical pause between them. This is the correct choice. Answer A uses only a comma between the two independent clauses, which creates what's called a comma splice — still a run-on error, just with a comma instead of nothing. A comma alone isn't strong enough to join two complete thoughts. Answer C introduces the word "because," which changes the meaning entirely — it reframes the warning as a cause-and-effect explanation rather than two direct commands. It also misuses the semicolon after "smoking," creating a new grammatical problem. Answer D is structurally broken in a different way. "If a machine begins smoking." is written as a complete sentence, but it's actually a dependent clause — it can't stand alone. The period after it creates a sentence fragment. Study tip: When you spot a run-on, ask yourself whether each part is a complete thought. If both are, a semicolon can join them cleanly — no rewording required.

Question 3

A store manual gives directions that employees should follow every time a return occurs: "When a customer returned an item, verify the receipt and record the reason for the return."

Which revision uses consistent verb tense and remains a general workplace direction?

  1. When a customer will return an item, verify the receipt and record the reason for the return.
  2. When a customer returned an item, the employee verified the receipt and recorded the reason.
  3. When a customer returns an item, verify the receipt and record the reason for the return. (correct answer)
  4. When a customer returns an item, verified the receipt and recorded the reason for the return.
Explanation: When writing workplace instructions or procedures, verb tense consistency is critical. Store manuals give general, ongoing directions — rules that apply every time a situation occurs, not just once in the past. That means you need the simple present tense throughout, because the instruction describes a repeating action, not a completed one. The original sentence mixes tenses: "returned" (past) appears in the condition, while "verify" and "record" (present) appear in the instruction. That inconsistency is exactly what the question asks you to fix. Choice C — "When a customer returns an item, verify the receipt and record the reason for the return" — corrects this perfectly. "Returns" is simple present, matching the imperative commands "verify" and "record." The sentence reads as a standing rule, which is exactly what a store manual requires. Choice A fails because "will return" shifts the condition into the future tense, making it sound like a one-time anticipated event rather than a routine policy. Choice B puts everything in the past tense ("returned," "verified," "recorded"), which makes the sentence read like a story about something that already happened — not a workplace direction at all. Choice D gets the condition right ("returns") but then uses past-tense verbs ("verified," "recorded") in the instruction, which creates the same tense mismatch the original had, just flipped. Study tip: When you see a question about procedure or instruction writing, ask yourself: Is this a rule that always applies? If yes, look for simple present tense in the condition and imperative (command) verbs in the instruction — that's the correct pattern.

Question 4

The posted bus schedule is still current. A meeting summary says: "At yesterday's meeting, Ana explains that Route 8 leaves at 6:15 each morning, and she asked staff to update the rider notice."

Which revision corrects the unnecessary tense shift while preserving the fact that the bus schedule is still current?

  1. At yesterday's meeting, Ana explained that Route 8 left at 6:15 each morning, and she asked staff to update the rider notice.
  2. At yesterday's meeting, Ana explained that Route 8 leaves at 6:15 each morning, and she asked staff to update the rider notice. (correct answer)
  3. At yesterday's meeting, Ana explains that Route 8 leaves at 6:15 each morning, and she asks staff to update the rider notice.
  4. At yesterday's meeting, Ana explained that Route 8 will leave at 6:15 each morning, and she asks staff to update the rider notice.
Explanation: When a sentence reports what someone said about a fact that is still true, English gives you a choice: you can shift the reported verb to past tense (backshifting), or you can keep it in present tense to show the fact remains current. What you cannot do is mix tenses randomly within the same sentence. That inconsistency — called an unnecessary tense shift — is exactly what this question tests. The original sentence has two problems: "Ana explains" uses present tense even though the meeting was yesterday, and "she asked" correctly uses past tense. That inconsistency is the tense shift you need to fix. Choice B solves both issues cleanly: "Ana explained" puts her action in the past where it belongs, "Route 8 leaves" stays in present tense to signal the schedule is still current, and "she asked" remains past tense — all consistent and logical. That makes B the correct answer. Choice A is tempting but subtly wrong: changing "leaves" to "left" implies the schedule was true in the past but may no longer be, which contradicts the fact that the posted schedule is still current. Choice C fixes the verb "explains" to present tense but leaves it there, which is wrong because the meeting happened yesterday — Ana's action of explaining is finished and belongs in past tense. Choice D mixes "will leave" (future tense) with "asks" (present tense), creating a new inconsistency rather than resolving the original one. Your takeaway: when a sentence reports a past action but references an ongoing fact, use past tense for the reporting verb and present tense for the fact itself — and make sure both halves of the sentence match that logic throughout.

Question 5

A community center report describes a completed volunteer project: "Last Saturday, volunteers sorted the donations they place each item in a labeled box."

Which revision corrects both the run-on and the unnecessary tense shift?

  1. Last Saturday, volunteers sorted the donations. They placed each item in a labeled box. (correct answer)
  2. Last Saturday, volunteers sorted the donations, they placed each item in a labeled box.
  3. Last Saturday, volunteers sorted the donations. They place each item in a labeled box.
  4. Last Saturday, volunteers sorted the donations; placing each item in a labeled box.
Explanation: When a question asks you to fix both a run-on sentence and a tense shift, you need to tackle two problems at once. A run-on occurs when two complete thoughts are joined without proper punctuation or a connecting word. A tense shift happens when a passage changes verb tense without a logical reason — here, the event happened in the past ("last Saturday"), so all verbs should stay in the past tense. The original sentence jams two independent clauses together with no punctuation: "sorted the donations they place each item" — that's the run-on. It also shifts from past tense ("sorted") to present tense ("place") — that's the unnecessary tense shift. Choice A fixes both problems cleanly: a period separates the two thoughts into complete sentences, and "placed" keeps everything in the past tense, matching the time signal "last Saturday." Choice B uses a comma between two independent clauses, which creates a comma splice — a common punctuation error that doesn't actually fix a run-on. Choice C correctly splits the sentences with a period but keeps "place" in the present tense, leaving the tense shift unfixed. Choice D uses a semicolon before "placing," but "placing each item in a labeled box" is not an independent clause — it's a fragment, so this revision creates a new grammatical error rather than solving the original ones. A useful strategy: when you see a time signal like "last Saturday" or "yesterday," it's your cue that the entire passage should use past tense consistently. Scan every verb to make sure they all match before choosing your answer.

Question 6

A delivery report contains this sentence: "The loading dock was blocked, therefore, the driver used the side entrance."

Which revision correctly joins the two complete thoughts using the word "therefore"?

  1. The loading dock was blocked; therefore, the driver used the side entrance. (correct answer)
  2. The loading dock was blocked, therefore, the driver used the side entrance.
  3. The loading dock was blocked; and therefore, the driver used the side entrance.
  4. The loading dock was blocked because; therefore, the driver used the side entrance.
Explanation: When two complete sentences are connected by a conjunctive adverb like "therefore," "however," or "consequently," punctuation does the heavy lifting of showing how they're related. The key rule: use a semicolon before the conjunctive adverb and a comma after it. This tells the reader that two independent thoughts are being linked with a logical bridge. Choice A does exactly this — "The loading dock was blocked; therefore, the driver used the side entrance." The semicolon closes the first complete thought, "therefore" signals the logical result, and the comma after it creates a natural pause before the second thought. This is the correct answer. Choice B is the original sentence from the passage — and it contains the very error the question asks you to fix. A comma alone before "therefore" creates what's called a comma splice, which incorrectly joins two independent clauses with only a comma. That's not strong enough punctuation for this job. Choice C adds "and" alongside "therefore," which creates an awkward double connector. You don't need both a coordinating conjunction and a conjunctive adverb — pick one approach. The combination is grammatically clunky and non-standard. Choice D is nonsensical. Inserting "because" before the semicolon makes the first clause incomplete and illogical — "blocked because" leaves the reader waiting for a reason that never comes. The sentence breaks down entirely. A quick tip to remember: semicolon + conjunctive adverb + comma. Think of it as a formula — if you see "therefore," "however," or "thus" joining two full sentences, that pattern is almost always your answer on grammar questions like this.

Question 7

A supervisor is revising this orientation notice: "The orientation covers three topics. Such as emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules."

Which revision corrects the fragment while keeping all three examples?

  1. The orientation covers three topics; such as emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules.
  2. The orientation covers. Three topics, including emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules.
  3. The orientation covers three topics, such as emergency procedures. Payroll dates and safety rules.
  4. The orientation covers three topics: emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence begins with a phrase like "such as" or "including," watch out for sentence fragments — groups of words that look like sentences but are missing a complete thought. The original notice has exactly this problem: "Such as emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules" cannot stand alone as a sentence because it has no subject or verb. It's a fragment attached to the sentence before it with a period, which separates what belongs together. The cleanest fix is to connect the examples directly to the main sentence using a colon. A colon after "topics" signals that a list is coming, making the whole thing one complete, correct sentence: The orientation covers three topics: emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules. This is what choice D does, and it preserves all three examples without adding any punctuation errors. Choice A keeps "such as" and places a semicolon before it, but a semicolon must join two independent clauses — and "such as emergency procedures, payroll dates, and safety rules" still isn't a complete clause, so this doesn't fix the fragment. Choice B creates a new fragment by putting a period after "covers," leaving "The orientation covers." as an incomplete thought. Choice C splits the examples across two sentences by placing a period after "emergency procedures," cutting the list apart and creating another fragment: "Payroll dates and safety rules." A useful tip to remember: if you see "such as" or "including" starting a new sentence, that's almost always a fragment. These phrases introduce examples and need to be attached — with a comma or colon — to the sentence they belong with, never separated by a period or semicolon.

Question 8

A current facility guide states: "The pharmacy is beside the elevators. To reduce waiting time, the new check-in desk near the main entrance."

Which revision makes the second sentence complete and keeps it consistent with the guide's present-tense description?

  1. To reduce waiting time, the new check-in desk being near the main entrance.
  2. To reduce waiting time. The new check-in desk is near the main entrance.
  3. To reduce waiting time, the new check-in desk had been near the main entrance.
  4. To reduce waiting time, the new check-in desk is near the main entrance. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence is missing its main verb, it becomes a fragment — an incomplete thought that leaves the reader hanging. This question tests your ability to spot a fragment and fix it while also matching the tense used elsewhere in the passage. The original second sentence — "To reduce waiting time, the new check-in desk near the main entrance" — has a subject ("the new check-in desk") but no verb. It never actually tells us what the desk does or is. The fix is simple: add the verb "is." That gives you D: "To reduce waiting time, the new check-in desk is near the main entrance." This is a complete sentence with a clear subject and verb, and it uses present tense, which matches the first sentence ("The pharmacy is beside the elevators"). Here's why the other options fall short. Choice A uses "being," which is a participle, not a true main verb — so the sentence is still a fragment. Choice B splits the sentence into two pieces with a period after "time," which turns "To reduce waiting time" into its own fragment since that phrase alone can't stand alone as a complete sentence. Choice C uses "had been," a past perfect tense that implies the desk used to be there but isn't anymore — this contradicts a current facility guide written in present tense. A good strategy: whenever you're asked to "revise" a sentence, check two things first — does it have a subject and a main verb, and does its tense match the surrounding text? Those two checks will steer you to the right answer most of the time.

Question 9

An employee handbook contains this direction: "Before submitting the reimbursement form. Check that every receipt is attached."

Which revision correctly repairs the fragment and keeps the direction clear?

  1. Before submitting the reimbursement form; check that every receipt is attached.
  2. Before submitting the reimbursement form. Check that every receipt is attached.
  3. Submit the reimbursement form before. Checking that every receipt is attached.
  4. Before submitting the reimbursement form, check that every receipt is attached. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence can't stand on its own because it's missing a complete thought, it's called a fragment. This question tests your ability to spot a fragment and fix it using correct punctuation — a core skill for clear workplace writing. The original text splits one continuous idea into two pieces with a period: "Before submitting the reimbursement form." This opening clause tells us when something should happen, but it never completes the thought on its own — it depends on what follows. The solution is to connect the two parts with a comma, which is exactly what D does: "Before submitting the reimbursement form, check that every receipt is attached." The introductory clause flows naturally into the main instruction, forming one complete, clear sentence. A replaces the period with a semicolon, but semicolons must join two independent clauses — clauses that can each stand alone. "Before submitting the reimbursement form" cannot stand alone, so this is still a grammatical error. B is simply the original error repeated — keeping the period leaves the fragment in place, which is the problem you're trying to fix. C restructures the sentence in a way that creates a new fragment: "Checking that every receipt is attached" becomes a dangling, incomplete phrase that doesn't connect logically to the first part. A useful tip: whenever you see a sentence beginning with before, after, because, although, or when, pause. These words create dependent clauses that must be joined to an independent clause — usually with a comma — or the result is a fragment.

Question 10

A clinic receptionist is revising this appointment reminder: "The clinic closes at 5:00, patients who arrive later must reschedule."

Which revision corrects the sentence error without changing the meaning?

  1. The clinic closes at 5:00, patients who arrive later must reschedule.
  2. The clinic closes at 5:00; patients who arrive later must reschedule. (correct answer)
  3. Because patients who arrive later must reschedule, the clinic closes at 5:00.
  4. The clinic closes at 5:00; because patients who arrive later must reschedule.
Explanation: When two complete sentences are joined with only a comma, the result is a grammatical error called a comma splice. You can spot a comma splice by checking whether each side of the comma could stand alone as a full sentence. In the original, "The clinic closes at 5:00" and "patients who arrive later must reschedule" are both complete thoughts — so joining them with just a comma is incorrect. The fix in B replaces the comma with a semicolon. A semicolon is specifically designed to connect two closely related independent clauses without a conjunction. It keeps both ideas together, preserves the original meaning, and eliminates the comma splice — making B the correct revision. A is simply the original sentence repeated, comma splice and all, so it doesn't correct anything. C changes the meaning by using "Because," which makes the clinic's closing time seem like a consequence of the rescheduling policy — that's logically backwards and confusing. D uses a semicolon correctly at first, but then adds "because," which turns the second part into a dependent clause. A semicolon must be followed by a complete sentence, not a fragment beginning with a subordinating conjunction like "because." A handy strategy: whenever you see two independent clauses joined in a sentence, ask yourself what's connecting them? Your options are (1) a comma + coordinating conjunction (and, but, so), (2) a semicolon alone, or (3) a period. A comma by itself is never enough. Memorizing this rule will help you catch comma splices quickly on any writing-mechanics question.