English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Avoiding Awkward Word Order
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Avoiding Awkward Word OrderQuestion 1 of 10

The committee reimbursed the interns for train tickets. Supervisors received no reimbursement, although their train tickets would otherwise have qualified.

Which sentence uses the placement of "only" to express most precisely that the restriction applies to the people reimbursed?

Only the committee reimbursed interns for train tickets submitted under the program.
The committee reimbursed only interns for train tickets submitted under the program.
The committee only reimbursed interns for train tickets submitted under the program.
The committee reimbursed interns only for train tickets submitted under the program.
← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Avoiding Awkward Word Order

Practice Avoiding Awkward Word Order 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 Word Order, 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

The committee reimbursed the interns for train tickets. Supervisors received no reimbursement, although their train tickets would otherwise have qualified.

Which sentence uses the placement of "only" to express most precisely that the restriction applies to the people reimbursed?

  1. Only the committee reimbursed interns for train tickets submitted under the program.
  2. The committee reimbursed only interns for train tickets submitted under the program. (correct answer)
  3. The committee only reimbursed interns for train tickets submitted under the program.
  4. The committee reimbursed interns only for train tickets submitted under the program.
Explanation: When "only" appears in a sentence, it acts as a limiting modifier — it restricts the meaning of whatever word or phrase immediately follows it. The key rule is simple: place "only" directly before the element you want to restrict. Here, the passage tells you that supervisors were excluded from reimbursement, so the restriction applies specifically to who received it — the interns, not supervisors. That's exactly what B accomplishes. "Reimbursed only interns" places "only" directly before "interns," making clear that interns — and no one else — received reimbursement. This matches the passage's meaning precisely. The other options each shift the restriction to the wrong element. A is the trickiest distractor: placing "only" before "the committee" implies that no other group did the reimbursing, which misses the point entirely — the passage isn't questioning who issued reimbursements, but who received them. C places "only" before "reimbursed," suggesting the committee did nothing else to interns except reimburse them — it restricts the action, not the recipients. D positions "only" before "for train tickets," implying interns could have been reimbursed for other expenses too, but weren't — this restricts the category of expense, not the people. A reliable strategy: before choosing your answer, ask yourself what element needs to be restricted? Identify that element in the sentence, then confirm "only" sits directly before it. On grammar questions like this, misplaced modifiers — especially with words like "only," "just," "even," and "almost" — are among the most common traps, so train yourself to check modifier placement every time.

Question 2

Although the memorandum initially seemed useful, the editor discovered that its references were obsolete. She therefore decided not to circulate it.

Which completion uses the separable phrasal verb "set aside" with the clearest standard word order? "The editor decided to  ."

  1. set aside temporarily it rather than circulate it to the department
  2. set it aside temporarily rather than circulate it to the department (correct answer)
  3. set temporarily it aside rather than circulate it to the department
  4. set aside it temporarily rather than circulate it to the department
Explanation: When a phrasal verb like "set aside" is separable, it means a pronoun object must go between the verb and its particle — and a noun object may go there too. This is the core rule being tested here. With separable phrasal verbs, placement depends on what the object is. If the object is a pronoun (it, him, them), it must be inserted between the verb and the particle: "set it aside," never "set aside it." If the object is a noun phrase, both positions are acceptable ("set the memo aside" or "set aside the memo"), but pronoun insertion is non-negotiable. Option B — set it aside temporarily — is correct because it follows this mandatory rule exactly. The pronoun "it" sits between "set" and "aside," and the adverb "temporarily" follows naturally after the complete phrasal unit. Option A (set aside temporarily it) violates the pronoun rule entirely by placing "it" after both the particle and the adverb — a position no standard English grammar permits. Option C (set temporarily it aside) inserts the adverb awkwardly between the verb and the pronoun, breaking the verb-object sequence before the particle even appears. Option D (set aside it temporarily) places the pronoun after the particle rather than between verb and particle, which is the classic trap — it looks almost right, but with pronouns, "aside it" is always wrong. A useful tip: whenever you see a separable phrasal verb with a pronoun object, mentally check that the pronoun lands between the verb and the particle. If it doesn't, the sentence is grammatically unacceptable, regardless of how natural it might look at first glance.

Question 3

A curator is describing a writing desk. The desk is elegant, small, French, and from the eighteenth century.

Which noun phrase follows the most natural order for cumulative adjectives in standard English?

  1. an eighteenth-century elegant French small writing desk
  2. an elegant small French eighteenth-century writing desk
  3. an elegant small eighteenth-century French writing desk (correct answer)
  4. a French writing elegant small eighteenth-century desk
Explanation: When English speakers stack multiple adjectives before a noun, they follow an intuitive but strict sequence: opinion → size → age → shape → color → origin → material → purpose + noun. This order feels natural to native speakers even if they've never consciously studied it, and exam questions test whether you can identify violations of it. For this desk, you have four adjectives to place: elegant (opinion), small (size), eighteenth-century (age), and French (origin), followed by the compound noun writing desk. Plugging these into the sequence gives you: opinion → size → age → origin → noun, which produces elegant, small, eighteenth-century, French writing desk — exactly what choice C offers. This is why C is correct. Looking at the wrong answers: A leads with eighteenth-century (age) before elegant (opinion), violating the rule that opinion always comes first — it also buries small awkwardly in the middle. B gets opinion and size right but then swaps age and origin, placing French before eighteenth-century when origin must follow age, not precede it. D is the most disruptive option, splitting the compound noun writing desk by inserting adjectives between writing and desk, which destroys the noun phrase entirely — a clear structural error. A handy mnemonic for the adjective order is OSASCOMP (Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material, Purpose). When you see a question with stacked adjectives, mentally sort each word into its OSASCOMP category and rebuild the phrase — the correct order will become obvious.

Question 4

Every regional office must verify its totals first. The agency will then announce the final allocation.

Which sentence preserves the sequence and grammatical roles in the passage while avoiding an awkward separation between the verb and its object?

  1. After all regional offices have verified their totals, the agency will announce the final allocation. (correct answer)
  2. The agency will announce, after all regional offices have verified their totals, the final allocation.
  3. After the agency announces the final allocation, all regional offices will verify their totals.
  4. After all regional offices verify the final allocation, the agency will announce their totals.
Explanation: When combining two sentences into one, you need to track three things: the original sequence of events, the grammatical roles of each noun (who does what), and whether the sentence reads smoothly without awkward interruptions. The original passage establishes a clear order — regional offices verify totals first, then the agency announces the allocation. Any correct combination must honor that timeline, keep each subject doing its original action, and place the verb and its object close together. Choice A does all of this correctly. The subordinate clause ("After all regional offices have verified their totals") handles the first event, and the main clause ("the agency will announce the final allocation") handles the second. The verb announce sits directly next to its object the final allocation — clean and readable. This is your answer. Choice B preserves the facts but buries the object. Inserting the adverbial clause between announce and the final allocation creates an awkward split: "will announce, after all regional offices have verified their totals, the final allocation." Grammatically legal, but stylistically disruptive — exactly what the question warns against. Choice C reverses the sequence entirely. It places the agency's announcement before the offices verify their totals, which contradicts the original passage. Choice D scrambles the grammatical roles. It has regional offices verifying the final allocation and the agency announcing their totals — the objects are swapped, changing the meaning completely. Study tip: When a question asks you to combine sentences, always check two things before choosing: does the new sentence preserve who does what, and does it keep verbs close to their objects? These are the two most common traps in sentence-combining questions.

Question 5

Researchers argue that the most likely explanation for the decline is that it is temporary. The writer wants to preserve 'the researchers argue' as a parenthetical comment without disrupting the main sentence.

Which sentence places the parenthetical comment most effectively?

  1. The most likely explanation is that the decline, the researchers argue, is temporary.
  2. The most likely, the researchers argue, explanation is that the decline is temporary.
  3. The researchers' most likely explanation argues that the decline is temporary.
  4. The most likely explanation, the researchers argue, is that the decline is temporary. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks you to insert a parenthetical comment without disrupting the main sentence, your job is to find where the phrase can be lifted out entirely — leaving a grammatically complete, logically coherent sentence behind. Think of a parenthetical like a guest: it should slip in and out without rearranging the furniture. The core sentence here is "The most likely explanation is that the decline is temporary." That's the backbone. A correctly placed parenthetical should interrupt it at a natural boundary — typically between subject and verb — without splitting apart phrases that belong together. Choice D does exactly this: "The most likely explanation, the researchers argue, is that the decline is temporary." Remove the commas and the parenthetical, and you get a perfect sentence. The phrase lands between the complete subject ("the most likely explanation") and the verb ("is"), which is the cleanest possible seam. Choice A places the parenthetical inside the predicate — between "decline" and "is temporary" — splitting apart a that-clause ("that the decline is temporary") that should stay intact. This creates an awkward, confusing read. Choice B wedges the phrase between "most likely" and "explanation," tearing apart a noun phrase (most likely explanation) that functions as a unit. You'd never naturally pause there in speech or writing. Choice C isn't a parenthetical construction at all — it restructures the sentence entirely by making "researchers'" possessive and "argues" the main verb, which changes the original meaning and eliminates the parenthetical feature the question asks for. Strategy tip: To test any parenthetical, mentally remove it and check whether what remains is a clean, complete sentence. If removing the phrase breaks something, the placement is wrong.

Question 6

The archives almost never permit researchers to enter after dusk, but an exception may be granted for urgent projects.

Which revision uses standard and readable word order after the introductory restrictive adverb?

  1. Rarely the archives allow researchers to enter after dusk without receiving special authorization.
  2. Rarely allow the archives researchers to enter after dusk without receiving special authorization.
  3. Rarely do the archives allow researchers to enter after dusk without receiving special authorization. (correct answer)
  4. Rarely do allow the archives researchers to enter after dusk without receiving special authorization.
Explanation: When a sentence begins with a restrictive (negative or limiting) adverb like rarely, never, seldom, or hardly, standard English requires subject-auxiliary inversion — the auxiliary verb must come before the subject, mirroring the structure of a question. This is a formal grammatical rule, and recognizing it is the key to this question. The correct revision is C: Rarely do the archives allow researchers to enter after dusk... Here, the auxiliary do is correctly placed before the subject the archives, followed by the base verb allow. This produces the standard inverted structure: adverb → auxiliary → subject → main verb. The sentence is grammatically sound and natural-sounding in formal written English. A fails because it places the subject the archives directly after rarely with no inversion at all — "Rarely the archives allow" treats the adverb like an ordinary modifier rather than triggering the required inversion. B attempts inversion but scrambles the word order badly: "Rarely allow the archives researchers" separates the auxiliary from the structure entirely and places the verb before both the subject and the object, making the sentence nearly unreadable. D doubles up unnecessarily with "do allow" as a split auxiliary phrase while also misplacing the archives after both auxiliaries, producing an incoherent and non-standard construction. A useful pattern to remember: whenever you spot a sentence-opening negative or limiting adverb (rarely, seldom, never, not only), mentally draft the inverted question form first — "Do the archives allow...?" — then drop the question mark. That structure is exactly what belongs in the sentence.

Question 7

A conservation grant will support two activities: restoring wetlands and monitoring water quality.

Which sentence arranges the correlative conjunctions and their related elements most effectively?

  1. The grant not only will fund the restoration of wetlands but also the monitoring of water quality.
  2. The grant will fund the restoration not only of wetlands but also monitoring of water quality.
  3. The grant will not only fund the restoration of wetlands, but also water quality will be monitored.
  4. The grant will fund not only the restoration of wetlands but also the monitoring of water quality. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see correlative conjunctions like not only...but also, the key rule to remember is parallel structure: whatever grammatical form follows "not only" must be mirrored exactly by whatever follows "but also." The two elements being connected must be the same part of speech or phrase type. In this question, the grant is funding two things: the restoration of wetlands and the monitoring of water quality. Both are noun phrases, so "not only" and "but also" should each introduce a noun phrase. Choice D does this perfectly — "not only the restoration of wetlands but also the monitoring of water quality" — two matching noun phrases sitting symmetrically after the verb fund. That's your correct answer. Choice A breaks parallel structure by placing "not only" before the verb (will fund), but then "but also" introduces only a noun phrase rather than another verb phrase. The two sides of the conjunction don't match. Choice B is trickier — it splits "not only...but also" around the word of, creating an awkward and mismatched construction: "not only of wetlands" pairs a prepositional fragment against "monitoring of water quality," a noun phrase. Choice C is the most disruptive: the second half shifts from active to passive voice ("water quality will be monitored"), completely abandoning parallel structure and introducing an unnecessary subject change mid-sentence. A useful strategy: whenever you spot correlative conjunctions (not only/but also, either/or, both/and), mentally draw a line under the element following each conjunction and ask yourself, "Do these two elements match in form?" If they don't, the sentence has a parallelism error.

Question 8

Lena compared financial records from three offices and then noticed a discrepancy in the totals before the annual audit.

Which sentence most clearly and naturally expresses the sequence described in the passage?

  1. After comparing records from three offices, Lena noticed a discrepancy in the totals before the annual audit. (correct answer)
  2. Having compared records from three offices, a discrepancy in the totals became apparent to Lena before the audit.
  3. Lena noticed, before comparing records from three offices, a discrepancy in the totals before the annual audit.
  4. A discrepancy in the totals, having compared records from three offices, was noticed by Lena before the audit.
Explanation: When a sentence describes actions in sequence, you need to make sure the grammatical structure reflects that sequence clearly — and that every modifier logically connects to the right subject. The passage establishes a two-step sequence: first Lena compared records, then she noticed a discrepancy, and all of this happened before the annual audit. Option A captures this perfectly. The participial phrase "After comparing records from three offices" correctly modifies "Lena" (she did the comparing), the main clause names her as the actor who noticed the discrepancy, and "before the annual audit" closes the timeline naturally. Every element is in its logical place. Option B contains a classic dangling modifier. The phrase "Having compared records from three offices" should modify the subject who did the comparing — but the grammatical subject that follows is "a discrepancy," not Lena. Discrepancies cannot compare records. This is a dangling participial phrase, one of the most commonly tested errors in syntax questions. Option C inverts the sequence illogically. It says Lena noticed the discrepancy before comparing records, which contradicts the original passage entirely. The comparison had to come first to reveal the discrepancy. Option D repeats the dangling modifier problem from B — "having compared records from three offices" floats next to "a discrepancy," again suggesting the discrepancy did the comparing. The passive construction also buries Lena's role unnecessarily. Strategy tip: Whenever you see a participial phrase (especially one starting with having or after), immediately ask: does the subject right after the comma actually perform that action? If not, the modifier is dangling, and the answer is wrong.

Question 9

During the budget review, the panel wanted to know the reason the revised estimate had omitted equipment-maintenance costs.

Which sentence states the panel's question using standard word order in an embedded clause?

  1. The panel asked why the revised estimate had omitted the equipment-maintenance costs. (correct answer)
  2. The panel asked why had the revised estimate omitted the equipment-maintenance costs.
  3. The panel asked the revised estimate why it had omitted the equipment-maintenance costs.
  4. The panel asked why the equipment-maintenance costs had the revised estimate omitted.
Explanation: When a question or indirect question gets embedded inside a larger sentence, it becomes a noun clause — and noun clauses follow normal declarative word order (subject before verb), not interrogative word order (verb before subject). This is the key distinction this question tests. In option A, the embedded clause reads "why the revised estimate had omitted the equipment-maintenance costs" — subject (the revised estimate) comes before verb (had omitted). This is correct declarative word order inside an indirect question, making A the right answer. Option B flips the subject and auxiliary verb: "why had the revised estimate omitted" uses interrogative inversion, as if you were asking a direct question. Once a question is embedded after a verb like asked, that inversion disappears. B is a classic indirect-question word-order error. Option C changes the meaning entirely. Writing "asked the revised estimate why it had omitted" makes the estimate the person being addressed — as though the estimate itself were being questioned. This is a structural misreading of who or what the panel was asking about. Option D scrambles the clause into an awkward object-fronted construction: "why the equipment-maintenance costs had the revised estimate omitted." This mirrors a question structure from some other languages (topicalization) but is not standard English syntax. Study tip: Whenever you see an embedded question (after verbs like asked, wondered, knew), mentally replace it with a declarative statement and check that it reads subject-then-verb. If the word order looks like a direct question, it's wrong.

Question 10

Priya borrowed a biography from her neighbor. The biography—not the neighbor—had been published the previous spring.

Which sentence places the relative clause so that the intended meaning is immediately clear?

  1. Priya borrowed the biography from her neighbor that had been published the previous spring.
  2. Published the previous spring, Priya borrowed the biography from her neighbor.
  3. Priya borrowed from her neighbor, who had been published the previous spring, the biography.
  4. Priya borrowed the biography that had been published the previous spring from her neighbor. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence contains a relative clause (a phrase like "that had been published the previous spring"), placement is everything. The clause must sit directly next to the noun it modifies — otherwise you get a misplaced modifier, which creates ambiguity or outright absurdity. In this passage, the clause describes the biography, not the neighbor. So your job is to find the answer where "that had been published the previous spring" immediately follows "the biography." That's exactly what D does: "Priya borrowed the biography that had been published the previous spring from her neighbor." The clause attaches directly to "biography," leaving zero doubt about what was published. D is the correct answer. Now look at why the others fail. A places the clause right after "neighbor" — so it reads as though the neighbor was published the previous spring, which is the opposite of the intended meaning. This is the classic misplaced modifier trap. B opens with "Published the previous spring," which seems to modify the nearest subject — Priya — implying she was published, which is nonsensical. This is a dangling modifier: the introductory phrase has no logical subject to attach to. C is grammatically contorted; inserting "who had been published the previous spring" after "neighbor" again attributes the publication to the neighbor, and the sentence's word order is so awkward it obscures meaning entirely. Strategy tip: When you see a relative clause question, draw an arrow from the clause back to the noun it's supposed to describe. If anything else falls between them, the modifier is misplaced — eliminate that choice immediately.