English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Avoiding Awkward Passive Voice
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Avoiding Awkward Passive VoiceQuestion 1 of 10

Procurement contacted a vendor after the accounting department rejected an invoice. The rejection occurred because a consultant had failed to attach the required receipts.

Which revision most effectively clarifies the three responsible parties without changing the sequence of events?

Accounting notified the vendor that procurement had rejected the invoice because the consultant did not attach the receipts.
Procurement notified the vendor that accounting had rejected the invoice because the consultant had not attached the receipts.
The vendor notified procurement that accounting rejected the invoice after the consultant had not attached the required receipts.
Procurement was notified by the vendor that the invoice had been rejected because accounting had not attached the receipts.
← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Avoiding Awkward Passive Voice

Practice Avoiding Awkward Passive Voice in English Grammar & Syntax 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 Avoiding Awkward Passive Voice, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for English Grammar & Syntax.

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

Procurement contacted a vendor after the accounting department rejected an invoice. The rejection occurred because a consultant had failed to attach the required receipts.

Which revision most effectively clarifies the three responsible parties without changing the sequence of events?

  1. Accounting notified the vendor that procurement had rejected the invoice because the consultant did not attach the receipts.
  2. Procurement notified the vendor that accounting had rejected the invoice because the consultant had not attached the receipts. (correct answer)
  3. The vendor notified procurement that accounting rejected the invoice after the consultant had not attached the required receipts.
  4. Procurement was notified by the vendor that the invoice had been rejected because accounting had not attached the receipts.
Explanation: When a passage describes multiple actors and a sequence of events, your job is to track who did what — and in what order — before selecting a revision. Here, three parties appear: procurement, accounting, and the consultant. The original sequence is: (1) the consultant failed to attach receipts → (2) accounting rejected the invoice → (3) procurement contacted the vendor. Answer B preserves all three of these elements faithfully. Procurement is correctly identified as the party contacting the vendor, accounting as the one who rejected the invoice, and the consultant as the one who failed to attach receipts. The past perfect "had not attached" also correctly signals that the consultant's failure happened before the rejection — maintaining the original timeline. Answer A distorts the facts by saying procurement rejected the invoice, when the passage clearly states accounting did. This swaps two responsible parties entirely, which changes meaning rather than clarifying it. Answer C misassigns the action: it says the vendor notified procurement, but the original passage says procurement contacted the vendor — the direction of communication is reversed. C also awkwardly phrases the consultant's failure ("had not attached" following "after" creates a timeline that muddies causation). Answer D makes an even more serious error by attributing the invoice rejection to accounting's failure to attach receipts, when it was actually the consultant's responsibility — it reassigns blame to the wrong party. As a strategy, whenever a revision question involves multiple actors, map each party to their action before evaluating the choices. Any answer that reassigns an action to the wrong person is automatically disqualified, no matter how grammatically smooth it sounds.

Question 2

A review panel examined the data and reached a unanimous conclusion. The draft report states: "It was concluded by the review panel that the pilot program should continue."

Which revision is the most concise without weakening the panel's level of certainty?

  1. The review panel concluded that the pilot program should continue. (correct answer)
  2. The pilot program was thought by the review panel to deserve continuation.
  3. It seemed to the review panel that the pilot program might continue.
  4. A conclusion was reached by the review panel concerning continuation of the pilot program.
Explanation: When a question asks you to revise for concision without weakening meaning, you need to evaluate two things simultaneously: Is the sentence as short as possible? And does it preserve the original's strength and specificity? The original sentence — "It was concluded by the review panel that the pilot program should continue" — has two problems: it uses a wordy expletive construction ("It was concluded") and passive voice ("by the review panel"). The fix is to make the subject perform the action directly. Choice A does exactly this: "The review panel concluded that the pilot program should continue." The panel is the subject, "concluded" is an active verb, and the certainty of a unanimous conclusion is fully intact. It's shorter and stronger. Choice B fails on both counts. Swapping "concluded" for "was thought...to deserve continuation" is passive, wordier, and weakens the panel's definitive stance — "thought" implies less certainty than "concluded." Choice C is the most damaging distractor: "seemed" and "might" introduce hedging language that directly contradicts the passage's statement that the panel was unanimous. This revision doesn't just trim words — it changes the meaning. Choice D removes no words and adds vagueness; "concerning continuation" is an awkward nominalization that buries the key action and remains in passive voice. A quick strategy to remember: nominalization is the enemy of concision. Watch for when verbs get converted into nouns ("reached a conclusion" instead of "concluded," "continuation" instead of "continue"). Restoring the verb almost always produces the tightest, clearest sentence — and that's your target on revision questions.

Question 3

Consultants interviewed 30 employees and then recommended three workflow changes. A draft summary reads: "After interviewing 30 employees, three workflow changes were recommended by the consultants."

Which revision most directly corrects the draft while preserving who performed each action?

  1. After interviewing 30 employees, three workflow changes were subsequently recommended by the consultants.
  2. After the consultants interviewed them, 30 employees recommended three changes to the existing workflow.
  3. After interviewing 30 employees, the consultants recommended three workflow changes. (correct answer)
  4. After interviews with 30 employees, the consultants' recommendation was for three workflow changes.
Explanation: Whenever you see a participial phrase at the start of a sentence — like "After interviewing 30 employees" — you must ask: who is the subject performing that action? The noun immediately following the comma must be the one doing the gerund's action. This is called the dangling modifier rule, and it's one of the most tested syntax concepts in grammar exams. The draft sentence fails because "three workflow changes" follows the comma, implying the changes did the interviewing — which is nonsensical. The fix requires placing the logical actor, "the consultants," right after the introductory phrase. Choice C does exactly this: "After interviewing 30 employees, the consultants recommended three workflow changes." The consultants interviewed; the consultants recommended. Both actions belong to one clear subject, and the sentence flows naturally in active voice. Choice A keeps the same dangling modifier problem — adding "subsequently" doesn't fix who's performing the action. The phrase still illogically attaches to "three workflow changes." Choice B is arguably the worst distractor: it reassigns the recommendation to the 30 employees, directly contradicting the passage's meaning and swapping who did what. Choice D avoids the dangling modifier by restructuring with a noun phrase ("After interviews with 30 employees"), but then buries the consultants in a possessive construction ("the consultants' recommendation was for"), producing an awkward, wordy sentence that obscures agency rather than preserving it clearly. When you spot an introductory participial phrase on a test, immediately identify who is performing that action, then confirm that noun is the sentence's subject. If it isn't, the modifier is dangling — and any answer that doesn't fix this is wrong, no matter what else it changes.

Question 4

A project policy assigns project leads the duty of recording deviations. Supervisors, not project leads, approve those deviations before implementation.

Which sentence states these responsibilities most clearly and avoids passives that obscure accountability?

  1. Any deviations must be documented by someone, and a supervisor's approval must be obtained by someone else before implementation begins.
  2. Project leads must document deviations and obtain a supervisor's approval before implementing them. (correct answer)
  3. Supervisors must document all deviations and approve them before the project leads begin implementation.
  4. Project leads must ensure deviations are documented and that approval is secured by supervisors before implementation.
Explanation: When a question asks you to identify the clearest sentence that avoids obscuring accountability, your job is to check two things: does each sentence assign the right action to the right person, and does it use active voice to make that assignment unmistakable? The passage tells you two distinct facts — project leads record deviations, and supervisors approve them. Choice B captures both responsibilities accurately and efficiently: "Project leads must document deviations and obtain a supervisor's approval before implementing them." Project leads are the grammatical subject performing both actions (documenting and obtaining approval), and the supervisor's role is clearly named as the approver. Every actor is visible, and no passive construction hides who does what. Choice A fails on multiple levels. Phrases like "must be documented by someone" and "approval must be obtained by someone else" are passive constructions that strip away specific accountability — exactly the problem the question asks you to avoid. It also never names project leads or supervisors by role. Choice C reverses the responsibilities entirely, incorrectly stating that supervisors document deviations. The passage explicitly assigns that duty to project leads, so this answer contradicts the source material regardless of its grammatical structure. Choice D appears close to correct but introduces a subtle passive: "approval is secured by supervisors." While supervisors are named, the phrasing buries their action inside a passive clause rather than stating it directly. It also uses the vague "ensure deviations are documented" rather than stating clearly that project leads do the documenting. As a strategy, whenever you're evaluating sentences for clarity and accountability, underline the subject of each clause and ask: Is the right person doing the right thing, stated directly? Active voice with named actors is your benchmark.

Question 5

An analyst collected survey responses. Interns coded the responses, and the analyst then analyzed the coded data. The draft states: "The responses were collected by the analyst, coded by the interns, and then analyzed by the analyst."

Which revision best preserves the division of labor while eliminating the draft's repetitive passive structure?

  1. The analyst collected the responses, and the interns coded and then analyzed the resulting survey data.
  2. The responses were collected by the analyst before the interns coded them and they were analyzed by her.
  3. The analyst collected and coded the responses before the interns analyzed the resulting survey data.
  4. The analyst collected the responses, the interns coded them, and the analyst then analyzed the data. (correct answer)
Explanation: When revising sentences for clarity and concision, you want to ask two questions simultaneously: Does the revision preserve the original meaning accurately? And does it eliminate the specific stylistic problem identified? Here, that problem is repetitive passive voice — the draft uses "were collected by," "coded by," and "analyzed by" in a clunky chain that also repeats "the analyst" unnecessarily. The strongest revision keeps each agent paired with their correct action. In D, the analyst collects the responses, the interns code them, and the analyst then analyzes the data — all in clean active voice. Every actor does exactly what the original passage describes, and no information is added or removed. The structure is parallel and easy to follow. Choice A misattributes the work: it gives the interns both coding and analyzing duties, directly contradicting the passage. This is a meaning error, not just a style issue. Choice B keeps passive constructions ("were collected by," "were analyzed by") and introduces the vague pronoun "they," making it unclear whether "they" refers to the responses or something else — so it fails on both the passive-reduction and clarity goals. Choice C makes the opposite error from A: it gives the analyst the coding role, which the passage explicitly assigns to the interns. Swapping who does what is a critical factual distortion. A useful strategy here: before evaluating style, verify that each answer choice preserves the who-does-what relationships from the original. Content accuracy must come before stylistic improvement — an elegant sentence that says the wrong thing is always wrong.

Question 6

Interns drafted a proposal during the previous week. On Tuesday, the board rejected that proposal.

Which sentence most clearly communicates these facts without an awkward sequence of passive and modifying phrases?

  1. On Tuesday, the board rejected the proposal that the interns had drafted the previous week. (correct answer)
  2. On Tuesday, the proposal that had been drafted by the board was rejected by the interns the previous week.
  3. The board rejected the proposal on Tuesday, having drafted it by the interns the previous week.
  4. On Tuesday, the proposal was rejected after being drafted by the board's interns that same day.
Explanation: When a question asks you to identify the "clearest" or "most natural" sentence, you're being tested on sentence clarity, logical word order, and the correct use of active vs. passive voice. The goal is a sentence where the subject performs a clear action, modifiers attach to the right nouns, and the timeline reads logically. Choice A accomplishes all of this. The board (subject) rejected (active verb) the proposal (object) on Tuesday — clean and direct. The relative clause "that the interns had drafted the previous week" correctly uses the past perfect tense ("had drafted") to signal that the drafting happened before the rejection, and it attaches neatly to "proposal," which is exactly what the interns drafted. Choice B scrambles the agents completely — it says the proposal "had been drafted by the board," then "rejected by the interns," which reverses who did what. This is the most misleading distractor because it looks grammatically sophisticated while being factually backwards. Choice C contains a dangling modifier: "having drafted it by the interns" implies the board drafted it, which contradicts the passage. The participial phrase attaches to the nearest subject — the board — creating confusion. Choice D introduces a factual error by saying the drafting happened "that same day" (Tuesday), contradicting "the previous week." It also incorrectly attributes the drafting to "the board's interns" in passive construction that muddles the timeline entirely. A is correct. Your strategy: when evaluating sentence clarity questions, trace the who did what chain first, then check whether modifying phrases are attached to the right nouns and whether verb tenses reflect the correct sequence of events.

Question 7

Human Resources introduced a requirement that employees use online forms. The department's purpose was to reduce processing delays. The announcement reads: "To reduce processing delays, online forms are now required by Human Resources."

Which revision most clearly links the stated purpose to the party pursuing it?

  1. For processing delays to be reduced, online forms are now required of employees by Human Resources.
  2. To reduce processing delays, Human Resources now requires employees to use online forms. (correct answer)
  3. To reduce processing delays, online forms now require employees to submit them to Human Resources.
  4. Processing delays, requiring online forms from employees, are now reduced by Human Resources.
Explanation: When a sentence opens with an infinitive phrase like "to reduce processing delays," grammar requires that the subject of the main clause be the agent actually performing that action — this is called a dangling modifier, and avoiding it is the core skill being tested here. Option B handles this perfectly: "To reduce processing delays, Human Resources now requires employees to use online forms." Human Resources is the one trying to reduce delays, so it correctly follows the introductory phrase. The cause-and-effect relationship is transparent, and every actor is doing what they're actually supposed to be doing. Option A rearranges the infinitive into a passive construction ("are now required of employees"), which buries who is doing the requiring and distances the purpose from its agent. While technically grammatical, it lacks the clarity the question asks for. Option C commits a logical error: it says "online forms now require employees," as if the forms themselves are making demands — this misattributes agency entirely and creates a nonsensical sentence. Option D is the most confused: it implies that "processing delays" are the subject doing something, and "requiring online forms from employees" is attached to delays as if delays have administrative authority — a clear case of misplaced meaning and muddled agency. A useful strategy: whenever you see an introductory infinitive phrase ("To do X..."), immediately ask yourself, who is doing X? That agent must be the subject of the clause that follows. If the subject can't logically perform the action in the opening phrase, the sentence has a dangling modifier — and on grammar exams, that's almost always a wrong answer.

Question 8

A technician completed an equipment inspection before the director arrived. At the moment of the director's arrival, a supervisor was still completing the safety checklist.

Which active-voice revision preserves both the agents and the original time relationships?

  1. Before the director arrived, the technician inspected the equipment, and the supervisor completed the safety checklist.
  2. When the director arrived, the technician was inspecting the equipment, and the supervisor had completed the checklist.
  3. By the time the director arrived, the technician had inspected the equipment, and the supervisor was completing the checklist. (correct answer)
  4. By the time the director arrived, the equipment had inspected the technician while the supervisor completed the checklist.
Explanation: When a question asks you to preserve "time relationships" in an active-voice revision, your job is to match each verb tense to the timing sequence in the original passage. Here, two time relationships matter: (1) the technician finished before the director arrived — a completed past action preceding another past action — and (2) the supervisor was still in progress at the exact moment the director arrived. The past perfect tense ("had + past participle") signals that one past action was completed before another. The past progressive ("was + -ing") signals an action ongoing at a specific past moment. Option C uses both correctly: "the technician had inspected" places the inspection before the arrival, and "the supervisor was completing" captures the checklist as an in-progress action during arrival. It also keeps both agents (technician, supervisor) performing their own actions. C is your answer. Option A fails on two counts: "the supervisor completed the checklist" implies the checklist was finished before the director arrived, which contradicts the passage. Simple past doesn't convey ongoing action. Option B reverses the error — it puts the technician in the past progressive ("was inspecting"), suggesting the inspection was still happening at arrival, when the passage clearly states it was already done. Option D is grammatically absurd: "the equipment had inspected the technician" swaps agent and receiver, meaning the equipment performed the action on the technician — a logical impossibility. Study tip: On tense-preservation questions, mentally map each event on a timeline first. Past perfect = finished before a reference point; past progressive = ongoing at a reference point. Match your tenses to that map before evaluating answer choices.

Question 9

Three laboratory samples became contaminated overnight. Investigators know neither the source of the contamination nor whether a person caused it. The report should emphasize the affected samples.

Which sentence uses voice most appropriately for this report?

  1. An unidentified laboratory worker contaminated three samples during the night, according to the investigation.
  2. The occurrence of overnight contamination happened to three samples from an unidentified source.
  3. Investigators contaminated three laboratory samples overnight while attempting to identify the source.
  4. Three laboratory samples were contaminated overnight; investigators have not identified the source. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks about voice (active vs. passive) in professional writing, your job isn't simply to prefer one over the other — it's to match voice to purpose. Ask yourself: what does this passage want to emphasize, and what information is actually known? Here, the report has two constraints: the source of contamination is unknown, and the focus should be on the affected samples, not on a person or investigator. That points directly to the passive voice, which strategically moves the samples to the subject position and avoids attributing action to an unidentified agent. D does exactly this. "Three laboratory samples were contaminated overnight" opens with the samples as the subject, uses passive voice appropriately because the agent is unknown, and the second clause honestly acknowledges what investigators don't yet know. It's precise, accurate, and purpose-driven. A fails because it invents information — it claims "an unidentified laboratory worker" caused the contamination, but the passage explicitly states investigators don't know whether a person caused it at all. Fabricating an agent is a serious factual error. B is awkward and redundant ("the occurrence of... happened") and buries the samples inside a clunky construction. It reads as evasive rather than clear, and wordy phrasing like this signals poor writing, not strategic voice use. C is the most dangerous distractor — it uses active voice but makes investigators the subject, implying they caused the contamination. That directly contradicts the passage and shifts blame incorrectly. Strategy tip: On voice questions, passive isn't always wrong — it's the right tool when the agent is unknown, irrelevant, or when emphasis belongs on the receiver of the action, not the doer.

Question 10

A committee reviewed a grant application and then voted to extend the submission deadline by two weeks.

Which sentence most clearly expresses the sequence of actions while avoiding both an awkward passive and a dangling introductory phrase?

  1. Having reviewed the application, the deadline was extended for two weeks by the committee.
  2. After the application review, a two-week extension of the deadline was made by the committee.
  3. After reviewing the application, the committee extended the deadline by two weeks. (correct answer)
  4. The application having been reviewed, the deadline was extended by the committee for two weeks.
Explanation: When a sentence opens with an introductory participial phrase ("having reviewed," "after reviewing"), the subject that immediately follows must be the one performing that action. This concept — called the dangling modifier — is one of the most frequently tested issues in grammar and syntax questions like this one. Option C works precisely because of this logical alignment. "After reviewing the application" tells us someone reviewed it, and the subject that follows — "the committee" — is exactly that someone. The verb "extended" is active, direct, and clear. The sentence flows naturally without unnecessary complexity. Option A dangles badly: "Having reviewed the application" implies a doer, but the subject that follows is "the deadline" — a deadline cannot review anything. This is a classic dangling participial phrase, and it's the most common trap you'll encounter on this topic. Option B avoids the dangling modifier by using a noun phrase ("After the application review") rather than a participial phrase, which technically sidesteps the dangling issue. However, it still commits the second error the question warns against: the awkward passive construction "a two-week extension...was made by the committee." Passive voice buries the agent and weakens clarity. Option D uses an absolute phrase ("The application having been reviewed"), which is grammatically legitimate but stylistically cumbersome and formal to the point of awkwardness. It also uses a passive construction ("was extended by the committee"), making it a weaker choice. Your takeaway: whenever you see an introductory phrase, immediately ask, "Can the subject of the main clause logically perform this action?" If not, the phrase dangles — eliminate that choice immediately.