AP Latin Quiz: Translate Literally Accounting For Every Word

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Translate Literally Accounting For Every Word, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for AP Latin.

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.

Question 1

1. With these things heard, many said Catiline was preparing a conspiracy. (correct answer)
2. With these things hearing, many say Catiline prepares a conspiracy.
3. With these things heard, many said that a conspiracy was preparing Catiline.
4. After these things were heard, many said Catiline had prepared a conspiracy.

Explanation: This question tests AP Latin translation skills, specifically producing a literal translation accounting for every word. Literal translation involves accurately rendering each Latin word into English, preserving grammatical structures and cultural nuances. In this passage, 'His rebus auditis' is an ablative absolute meaning 'with these things having been heard,' and the indirect statement 'Catilinam coniurationem parare' requires recognizing that 'Catilinam' is the accusative subject of the infinitive 'parare.' Choice A correctly translates the ablative absolute as 'With these things heard' and properly renders the indirect statement as 'Catiline was preparing a conspiracy,' maintaining the correct subject-verb relationship. Choice C incorrectly makes 'conspiracy' the subject preparing Catiline, reversing the logical relationship and misunderstanding the accusative-infinitive construction. To help students: Practice identifying accusative subjects in indirect statements. Emphasize that in 'Catilinam coniurationem parare,' Catiline (accusative) is the subject of the infinitive, not the object.

Question 2

1. In order to save the city, he posted guards. (correct answer)
2. So that he saved the city, he was posting guards.
3. In order to save the city, the guards posted him.
4. In order that the city might save him, he posted guards.

Explanation: This question tests AP Latin translation skills, specifically producing a literal translation accounting for every word. Literal translation involves accurately rendering each Latin word into English, preserving grammatical structures and cultural nuances. The purpose clause 'Ut urbem servaret' uses 'ut' with the imperfect subjunctive 'servaret' to express purpose, and 'vigilias disposuit' is a perfect indicative meaning 'he posted guards.' Choice A correctly translates this as 'In order to save the city, he posted guards,' maintaining the purpose relationship and understanding that Cicero is the implied subject taking action. Choice C incorrectly makes 'the guards' the subject posting Cicero, completely reversing the logical relationship and misunderstanding basic subject-verb agreement. To help students: Recognize 'ut' + subjunctive as purpose clauses meaning 'in order to/so that.' Watch for: maintaining proper subject-object relationships when subjects are implied from context.

Question 3

1. The standard-bearer raised the eagle, lest the spirit of the soldiers be broken. (correct answer)
2. The standard-bearer raised the eagle, so that the spirit of the soldiers was broken.
3. The standard-bearer had raised the eagle, lest the soldiers' spirit broke.
4. The standard-bearer raised the eagle, lest the spirit of the soldier be broken.

Explanation: This question tests AP Latin translation skills, specifically producing a literal translation accounting for every word. Literal translation involves accurately rendering each Latin word into English, preserving grammatical structures and cultural nuances. The sentence contains a negative purpose clause introduced by 'ne' with the imperfect passive subjunctive 'frangeretur,' literally meaning 'lest it be broken,' where 'animus militum' (spirit of the soldiers) is the subject. Choice A correctly translates this as 'The standard-bearer raised the eagle, lest the spirit of the soldiers be broken,' maintaining the subjunctive mood and the genitive plural 'militum.' Choice D incorrectly changes 'militum' (of the soldiers, plural) to 'of the soldier' (singular), missing the collective morale aspect crucial to understanding Roman military psychology. To help students: Recognize 'ne' + subjunctive as negative purpose clauses. Pay attention to number agreement - 'militum' is genitive plural, not singular.

Question 4

1. When flames and iron pressed, Aeneas said that he carried his father and saved the household gods. (correct answer)
2. Since flames and iron had been pressed, Aeneas says he will carry his father and may save the gods.
3. When flames and iron pressed, Aeneas said he carried his father to the shoulders and the gods were saved.
4. When flames and iron pressed, Aeneas said that his father carried him and saved the household gods.

Explanation: This question tests AP Latin translation skills, specifically producing a literal translation accounting for every word. Literal translation involves accurately rendering each Latin word into English, preserving grammatical structures and cultural nuances. In this passage, the temporal cum clause 'Cum flammae ferrumque urgerent' requires careful attention to the imperfect subjunctive 'urgerent' indicating circumstance, and the indirect statement 'se patrem humeris ferre et deos servare penates' needs proper handling of the accusative-infinitive construction. Choice A correctly translates 'When flames and iron pressed' for the cum clause and accurately renders the indirect statement as 'he carried his father and saved the household gods,' maintaining the proper subject-object relationships. Choice D incorrectly reverses the subject and object in the indirect statement, making the father carry Aeneas instead of Aeneas carrying his father, a critical error in understanding the scene's depiction of filial piety. To help students: Drill indirect statement constructions with reflexive pronouns. Watch for: confusion about who performs actions in indirect statements, especially with 'se' referring back to the main clause subject.

Question 5

1. When flames and steel were pressing, Aeneas said he carried his father on his shoulders. (correct answer)
2. When flames and steel press, Aeneas says he carries his father on his shoulders.
3. Since flames and steel were pressing, Aeneas said his father carried him on shoulders.
4. When flames and steel were pressing, Aeneas said he had been carrying his father to his shoulders.

Explanation: This question tests AP Latin translation skills, specifically producing a literal translation accounting for every word. Literal translation involves accurately rendering each Latin word into English, preserving grammatical structures and cultural nuances. The temporal cum clause 'Cum flammae ferrumque urgerent' uses the imperfect subjunctive to indicate circumstances, and the indirect statement 'se patrem humeris ferre' requires understanding that 'se' (accusative) is the subject of the infinitive 'ferre,' referring back to Aeneas. Choice A correctly translates this as 'When flames and steel were pressing, Aeneas said he carried his father on his shoulders,' properly rendering the temporal relationship and the indirect statement. Choice C incorrectly reverses the subject-object relationship, making the father carry Aeneas, which contradicts the famous scene of filial piety where Aeneas carries his elderly father Anchises from burning Troy. To help students: Remember that 'se' in indirect statements refers to the subject of the main verb. Understand the cultural context of Roman pietas exemplified in this scene.

Question 6

1. The leader, having encouraged his soldiers, gave the signal for battle. (correct answer)
2. The leader, having been encouraged by his soldiers, gave the signal for battle.
3. The leader was encouraged by his soldiers and gave the signal for battle.
4. The leader, encouraging his soldiers, was giving the signal for battle.

Explanation: The verb 'hortor, hortari, hortatus sum' is a deponent verb, which has passive forms but active meanings. 'Hortatus' is a perfect deponent participle, meaning 'having encouraged.' Choice B incorrectly translates it as a passive participle. Choice C makes the same error and changes the sentence structure. Choice D incorrectly translates it as a present participle ('encouraging'), which would be 'hortans.'

Question 7

1. The old man had one son. (correct answer)
2. One son was for the old man.
3. An old man was the only son.
4. He was the one son of the old man.

Explanation: This sentence uses a dative of possession. The dative noun ('seni', from 'senex') combined with a form of the verb 'esse' ('erat') indicates possession. The thing possessed ('filius unus') is in the nominative case. The most natural English equivalent is to use the verb 'to have.' Choice B is an overly literal translation. Choice C mistakes the dative 'seni' for a nominative predicate. Choice D mistakes the dative 'seni' for the genitive 'senis.'

Question 8

1. The messenger says that the Roman legions will soon come. (correct answer)
2. The messenger says that the Roman legions are soon coming.
3. The Roman legions say that the messenger will soon come.
4. The messenger is saying that the Roman legions have soon come.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to parse Latin ablative absolute constructions and identify the correct subject-verb relationships in a complex sentence. The key phrase here is "legione a novissimis hostibus pressa" - an ablative absolute construction. In ablative absolutes, both the noun and participle are in the ablative case and function independently from the main clause. Here, "legione" (ablative singular) is the subject of the participle "pressa" (ablative singular feminine, agreeing with "legione"). The phrase "a novissimis hostibus" uses the ablative of agent with the preposition "a," indicating who performed the action of the passive participle "pressa." The correct translation is B: "With the legion having been harassed by the enemy's rearguard, Caesar brought help." This properly renders the ablative absolute as a circumstantial clause and identifies Caesar as the subject of the main verb "tulit." Choice A incorrectly makes Caesar the one doing the harassing, misreading the ablative absolute as part of the main clause. Choice C misinterprets "pressa" as an active participle ("pressing") when it's actually passive ("having been pressed/harassed"). Choice D completely scrambles the syntax by making the legion the subject of "tulit" and creating a nonsensical three-way relationship between Caesar, the legion, and the rearguard. When you encounter ablative absolutes, always identify the ablative noun and its accompanying participle first, then determine how this independent construction relates temporally or causally to the main action.

Question 9

1. The consul speaks so that the citizens may take heart. (correct answer)
2. The consul speaks as the citizens take heart.
3. When the consul speaks, the citizens take heart.
4. The consul speaks about the citizens who are taking heart.

Explanation: When you encounter a Latin sentence beginning with "cum," you need to carefully analyze the context to determine which of its multiple meanings applies. The conjunction "cum" can mean "when," "since," "although," or be used in an ablative absolute construction. In this sentence, "Cum hoc sciret, Caesar e castris copias eduxit," the key is understanding the logical relationship between Caesar's knowledge and his military action. The verb "sciret" is in the imperfect subjunctive, which with "cum" typically indicates either temporal ("when") or causal ("since") meaning. Given that Caesar's knowledge logically provides the reason or justification for leading his troops out of camp, this is a causal relationship. Answer D correctly translates "cum" as "since," showing that Caesar's knowledge was the cause or reason for his military action. This captures the logical flow: because he knew this information, he acted upon it. Answer A treats "cum" as purely temporal ("when"), missing the causal nuance that the subjunctive mood conveys. Answer B incorrectly renders "cum" as "although," which would create a concessive meaning—suggesting Caesar acted despite his knowledge rather than because of it. Answer C attempts an ablative absolute translation ("with this knowledge"), but "cum hoc sciret" is clearly a subordinate clause with a finite verb, not an ablative absolute construction. Remember: when "cum" appears with the subjunctive, look for causal or circumstantial meaning rather than simple temporal sequence. The subjunctive mood is your clue that there's more than just timing involved.

Question 10

1. This must be done by us for the safety of the republic. (correct answer)
2. We are doing this for the safety of the republic.
3. This has been done by us for the safety of the republic.
4. We must do this for the safety of the republic.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to parse Latin ablative absolute constructions and identify the correct subject-verb relationships in a complex sentence. The key phrase here is "legione a novissimis hostibus pressa" - an ablative absolute construction. In ablative absolutes, both the noun and participle are in the ablative case and function independently from the main clause. Here, "legione" (ablative singular) is the subject of the participle "pressa" (ablative singular feminine, agreeing with "legione"). The phrase "a novissimis hostibus" uses the ablative of agent with the preposition "a," indicating who performed the action of the passive participle "pressa." The correct translation is B: "With the legion having been harassed by the enemy's rearguard, Caesar brought help." This properly renders the ablative absolute as a circumstantial clause and identifies Caesar as the subject of the main verb "tulit." Choice A incorrectly makes Caesar the one doing the harassing, misreading the ablative absolute as part of the main clause. Choice C misinterprets "pressa" as an active participle ("pressing") when it's actually passive ("having been pressed/harassed"). Choice D completely scrambles the syntax by making the legion the subject of "tulit" and creating a nonsensical three-way relationship between Caesar, the legion, and the rearguard. When you encounter ablative absolutes, always identify the ablative noun and its accompanying participle first, then determine how this independent construction relates temporally or causally to the main action.

Question 11

1. When Caesar knew this, he led his forces out of the camp.
2. Although he knew this, Caesar led his forces out of the camp.
3. With this knowledge, Caesar led his forces out of the camp.
4. Since he knew this, Caesar led his forces out of the camp. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a Latin sentence beginning with "cum," you need to carefully analyze the context to determine which of its multiple meanings applies. The conjunction "cum" can mean "when," "since," "although," or be used in an ablative absolute construction. In this sentence, "Cum hoc sciret, Caesar e castris copias eduxit," the key is understanding the logical relationship between Caesar's knowledge and his military action. The verb "sciret" is in the imperfect subjunctive, which with "cum" typically indicates either temporal ("when") or causal ("since") meaning. Given that Caesar's knowledge logically provides the reason or justification for leading his troops out of camp, this is a causal relationship. Answer D correctly translates "cum" as "since," showing that Caesar's knowledge was the cause or reason for his military action. This captures the logical flow: because he knew this information, he acted upon it. Answer A treats "cum" as purely temporal ("when"), missing the causal nuance that the subjunctive mood conveys. Answer B incorrectly renders "cum" as "although," which would create a concessive meaning—suggesting Caesar acted despite his knowledge rather than because of it. Answer C attempts an ablative absolute translation ("with this knowledge"), but "cum hoc sciret" is clearly a subordinate clause with a finite verb, not an ablative absolute construction. Remember: when "cum" appears with the subjunctive, look for causal or circumstantial meaning rather than simple temporal sequence. The subjunctive mood is your clue that there's more than just timing involved.

Question 12

1. If you had been present, we would have seen you. (correct answer)
2. If you were present, we would see you.
3. If you will be present, we will see you.
4. Since you were present, we saw you.

Explanation: This is a past contrary-to-fact conditional sentence. The condition (protasis) uses the pluperfect subjunctive ('adfuisses'), and the result (apodosis) also uses the pluperfect subjunctive ('vidissemus'). This construction describes a situation in the past that did not happen. The correct English equivalent is 'If...had..., ...would have....' Choice B describes a present contrary-to-fact condition. Choice C describes a future condition. Choice D misinterprets 'si' as 'since' and ignores the subjunctive mood.

Question 13

1. What is more foolish than a greedy man? (correct answer)
2. What is more foolish with a greedy man?
3. What is so foolish about a greedy man?
4. Why is a man more foolish and greedy?

Explanation: This question tests your ability to recognize and translate indirect questions in Latin. When you see a question word like cur (why) embedded within a larger sentence, you're dealing with an indirect question that requires specific translation patterns. The key elements here are: Nemo intellegit (No one understands) + cur (why) + adeo iratus sit (he is so angry). The word cur signals an indirect question, meaning someone doesn't understand why something is happening. The subjunctive sit confirms this is an indirect question rather than a direct statement. This construction translates as "No one understands why he is so angry." Looking at the wrong answers: Choice A incorrectly treats this as two separate clauses with cur meaning "for" or "because," but cur specifically means "why" and introduces a question. Choice B translates cur as "that," which would require quod or ut in Latin, not cur. This misses the interrogative nature of the sentence entirely. Choice C breaks the sentence into two independent parts, but the Latin presents one unified thought where cur introduces a subordinate clause dependent on intellegit. Remember that cur, quid, quo, quando, and similar interrogative words in subordinate clauses create indirect questions. These will always use the subjunctive mood and should be translated with question words (why, what, where, when) rather than conjunctions like "that" or "because." Watch for this pattern on the AP exam.

Question 14

1. The pliant willow and the pale olive tree yield so much...
2. As much as the pale willow yields to the pliant olive tree...
3. As much as the pliant willow yields to the pale olive tree... (correct answer)
4. How the pliant willow yields, and how much the pale olive tree...

Explanation: This question tests your ability to parse Latin comparative constructions and identify the correct grammatical relationships between words. When you encounter "quantum" in poetry, it typically introduces a comparison meaning "as much as" or "to the extent that." The key to translating this line correctly lies in identifying the grammatical functions of each word. "Lenta" (pliant/flexible) modifies "salix" (willow), while "pallenti" (pale) modifies "olivae" (olive tree). The verb "cedit" means "yields to" or "gives way to," and the dative case of "olivae" indicates it's the indirect object - what the willow yields to. "Quantum" introduces the comparative clause, creating the meaning "as much as the pliant willow yields to the pale olive tree." Choice A incorrectly treats both trees as subjects connected by "and," missing the comparative structure entirely. Choice B reverses the roles, making the olive tree the subject that yields to the willow, which contradicts the Latin grammar where "salix" is clearly the subject and "olivae" is in the dative case. Choice D fragments the sentence incorrectly, treating it as two separate "how" clauses rather than recognizing the single comparative construction with "quantum." The correct answer is C because it properly identifies "salix" as the subject, maintains the dative relationship with "olivae," and captures the comparative force of "quantum." Remember: when you see "quantum" in Latin poetry, look for a comparison structure, and always check case endings to determine which noun is the subject versus the indirect object.

Question 15

1. As the soldiers fought bravely, the enemies fled.
2. The soldiers fought bravely in order that the enemies might flee.
3. The soldiers fought so bravely that the enemies fled. (correct answer)
4. The soldiers fought the bravely fleeing enemies.

Explanation: When you encounter a Latin sentence beginning with "cum," you need to carefully analyze the context to determine which of its multiple meanings applies. The conjunction "cum" can mean "when," "since," "although," or be used in an ablative absolute construction. In this sentence, "Cum hoc sciret, Caesar e castris copias eduxit," the key is understanding the logical relationship between Caesar's knowledge and his military action. The verb "sciret" is in the imperfect subjunctive, which with "cum" typically indicates either temporal ("when") or causal ("since") meaning. Given that Caesar's knowledge logically provides the reason or justification for leading his troops out of camp, this is a causal relationship. Answer D correctly translates "cum" as "since," showing that Caesar's knowledge was the cause or reason for his military action. This captures the logical flow: because he knew this information, he acted upon it. Answer A treats "cum" as purely temporal ("when"), missing the causal nuance that the subjunctive mood conveys. Answer B incorrectly renders "cum" as "although," which would create a concessive meaning—suggesting Caesar acted despite his knowledge rather than because of it. Answer C attempts an ablative absolute translation ("with this knowledge"), but "cum hoc sciret" is clearly a subordinate clause with a finite verb, not an ablative absolute construction. Remember: when "cum" appears with the subjunctive, look for causal or circumstantial meaning rather than simple temporal sequence. The subjunctive mood is your clue that there's more than just timing involved.

Question 16

1. That consul whom we saw yesterday is in the forum.
2. He is the consul who saw us in the forum yesterday.
3. He is the consul whom we saw in the forum yesterday. (correct answer)
4. We saw him in the forum yesterday, who is the consul.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to recognize and translate indirect questions in Latin. When you see a question word like cur (why) embedded within a larger sentence, you're dealing with an indirect question that requires specific translation patterns. The key elements here are: Nemo intellegit (No one understands) + cur (why) + adeo iratus sit (he is so angry). The word cur signals an indirect question, meaning someone doesn't understand why something is happening. The subjunctive sit confirms this is an indirect question rather than a direct statement. This construction translates as "No one understands why he is so angry." Looking at the wrong answers: Choice A incorrectly treats this as two separate clauses with cur meaning "for" or "because," but cur specifically means "why" and introduces a question. Choice B translates cur as "that," which would require quod or ut in Latin, not cur. This misses the interrogative nature of the sentence entirely. Choice C breaks the sentence into two independent parts, but the Latin presents one unified thought where cur introduces a subordinate clause dependent on intellegit. Remember that cur, quid, quo, quando, and similar interrogative words in subordinate clauses create indirect questions. These will always use the subjunctive mood and should be translated with question words (why, what, where, when) rather than conjunctions like "that" or "because." Watch for this pattern on the AP exam.

Question 17

1. I fear that my friend may come.
2. I fear that my friend may not come. (correct answer)
3. I do not fear that my friend may come.
4. I fear my friend, lest he not come.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to recognize and translate indirect questions in Latin. When you see a question word like cur (why) embedded within a larger sentence, you're dealing with an indirect question that requires specific translation patterns. The key elements here are: Nemo intellegit (No one understands) + cur (why) + adeo iratus sit (he is so angry). The word cur signals an indirect question, meaning someone doesn't understand why something is happening. The subjunctive sit confirms this is an indirect question rather than a direct statement. This construction translates as "No one understands why he is so angry." Looking at the wrong answers: Choice A incorrectly treats this as two separate clauses with cur meaning "for" or "because," but cur specifically means "why" and introduces a question. Choice B translates cur as "that," which would require quod or ut in Latin, not cur. This misses the interrogative nature of the sentence entirely. Choice C breaks the sentence into two independent parts, but the Latin presents one unified thought where cur introduces a subordinate clause dependent on intellegit. Remember that cur, quid, quo, quando, and similar interrogative words in subordinate clauses create indirect questions. These will always use the subjunctive mood and should be translated with question words (why, what, where, when) rather than conjunctions like "that" or "because." Watch for this pattern on the AP exam.

Question 18

1. That woman's great wisdom had little judgment.
2. She was a woman of great wisdom but of little judgment. (correct answer)
3. That woman had the great wisdom of a small plan.
4. That woman's wisdom was great, but her plan was small.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to recognize Latin constructions with genitives of description and translate them into natural English. When you see a noun modified by an adjective and followed by a genitive phrase, you need to identify the most accurate and idiomatic English rendering. The Latin reads "Illa erat femina magnae sapientiae sed parvi consilii" - literally "She was a woman of great wisdom but of little judgment." The genitives magnae sapientiae and parvi consilii are genitives of description (also called genitives of quality), which describe characteristics of the woman. The conjunction sed creates a clear contrast between her abundant wisdom and her lack of practical judgment. Choice B correctly captures this meaning with natural English phrasing: "She was a woman of great wisdom but of little judgment." This preserves both the descriptive genitives and the contrasting relationship. Choice A incorrectly suggests that the woman's wisdom itself possessed little judgment, which misrepresents the Latin structure. Choice C completely mistranslates consilii as "plan" instead of "judgment" and creates a nonsensical meaning about wisdom belonging to a plan. Choice D also reduces consilium to merely "plan" rather than the more appropriate "judgment," and suggests her plan was small rather than her capacity for good judgment was lacking. Remember that genitives of description often translate smoothly into English phrases with "of" - but always check that your translation makes logical sense and preserves the author's intended meaning rather than creating awkward literalisms.

Question 19

1. Caesar, having harassed the legion with the enemy's rearguard, brought help.
2. With the legion having been harassed by the enemy's rearguard, Caesar brought help. (correct answer)
3. Caesar brought help to the legion pressing the enemy's rearguard.
4. The legion, having been harassed, brought help to Caesar and the enemy's rearguard.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to parse Latin ablative absolute constructions and identify the correct subject-verb relationships in a complex sentence. The key phrase here is "legione a novissimis hostibus pressa" - an ablative absolute construction. In ablative absolutes, both the noun and participle are in the ablative case and function independently from the main clause. Here, "legione" (ablative singular) is the subject of the participle "pressa" (ablative singular feminine, agreeing with "legione"). The phrase "a novissimis hostibus" uses the ablative of agent with the preposition "a," indicating who performed the action of the passive participle "pressa." The correct translation is B: "With the legion having been harassed by the enemy's rearguard, Caesar brought help." This properly renders the ablative absolute as a circumstantial clause and identifies Caesar as the subject of the main verb "tulit." Choice A incorrectly makes Caesar the one doing the harassing, misreading the ablative absolute as part of the main clause. Choice C misinterprets "pressa" as an active participle ("pressing") when it's actually passive ("having been pressed/harassed"). Choice D completely scrambles the syntax by making the legion the subject of "tulit" and creating a nonsensical three-way relationship between Caesar, the legion, and the rearguard. When you encounter ablative absolutes, always identify the ablative noun and its accompanying participle first, then determine how this independent construction relates temporally or causally to the main action.

Question 20

1. No one understands, for he is so angry.
2. No one understands that he is so angry.
3. Why is he so angry? No one understands.
4. No one understands why he is so angry. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your ability to recognize and translate indirect questions in Latin. When you see a question word like cur (why) embedded within a larger sentence, you're dealing with an indirect question that requires specific translation patterns. The key elements here are: Nemo intellegit (No one understands) + cur (why) + adeo iratus sit (he is so angry). The word cur signals an indirect question, meaning someone doesn't understand why something is happening. The subjunctive sit confirms this is an indirect question rather than a direct statement. This construction translates as "No one understands why he is so angry." Looking at the wrong answers: Choice A incorrectly treats this as two separate clauses with cur meaning "for" or "because," but cur specifically means "why" and introduces a question. Choice B translates cur as "that," which would require quod or ut in Latin, not cur. This misses the interrogative nature of the sentence entirely. Choice C breaks the sentence into two independent parts, but the Latin presents one unified thought where cur introduces a subordinate clause dependent on intellegit. Remember that cur, quid, quo, quando, and similar interrogative words in subordinate clauses create indirect questions. These will always use the subjunctive mood and should be translated with question words (why, what, where, when) rather than conjunctions like "that" or "because." Watch for this pattern on the AP exam.