English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Editing For Cohesion

10 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Editing For CohesionQuestion 1 of 10

An early survey found strong support for extending the library's weekend hours. However, the researchers surveyed only weekday visitors, excluding many people most likely to use the proposed hours. , the result should not be treated as representative of all library patrons.

Which transition most clearly expresses the logical relationship between the sampling limitation and the conclusion?

Nevertheless

Accordingly

For instance

In comparison

← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Editing For Cohesion

Practice Editing For Cohesion 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 Editing For Cohesion, 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

Which transition most clearly expresses the logical relationship between the sampling limitation and the conclusion?

Nevertheless
Accordingly (correct answer)
For instance
In comparison

Explanation: When a question asks you to choose a transition word, your job is to identify the logical relationship between the two ideas being connected. Ask yourself: is the second idea a result, a contrast, an example, or a comparison of the first? Here, the passage establishes a cause-and-effect chain: because the survey only included weekday visitors (a sampling flaw), the results are unreliable. The transition needs to signal that the conclusion follows directly from that flaw. That's the job of B) Accordingly, which means "as a logical consequence of what was just stated." The sampling limitation isn't just background information — it's the direct reason the results can't be trusted, and "accordingly" makes that causal link explicit. A) Nevertheless signals contrast or concession — it would imply the conclusion holds despite the limitation, which contradicts the passage's logic. Using it here would suggest the flaw doesn't matter, when the whole point is that it does. C) For instance introduces an example. The conclusion isn't an example of the limitation; it's a judgment drawn from it. This choice confuses cause-and-effect with illustration. D) In comparison signals that two things are being measured against each other. There's no comparison happening here — just a single flaw leading to a single conclusion. A useful strategy: before looking at the answer choices, mentally label the relationship yourself — contrast, consequence, example, or comparison. Then match that label to the transition. "Accordingly," "therefore," and "thus" all signal consequence, so when you see cause-and-effect reasoning, those words should immediately stand out.

Question 2

The engineer reported that the retaining wall had shifted and that repairs could cost as much as two million dollars. This alarmed the trustees, who immediately reviewed the reserve fund.

The writer intends to emphasize that the projected repair cost—not merely the wall's movement or the existence of the report—alarmed the trustees. Which revision best achieves this purpose?

The two-million-dollar repair estimate alarmed the trustees, who immediately reviewed the reserve fund. (correct answer)
The engineer's report alarmed the trustees, who immediately reviewed the reserve fund.
The retaining wall's movement alarmed the trustees, who immediately reviewed the reserve fund.
This serious situation alarmed the trustees, who immediately reviewed the reserve fund.

Explanation: When a question asks you to emphasize a specific element, your job is to identify which answer places that element in the grammatical subject or main focus position — not buried inside a subordinate clause or hidden behind a vague pronoun. The original passage uses "This" as the subject of the alarming sentence, which is ambiguous — "this" could refer to the wall shifting, the report itself, or the cost estimate. The question tells you the writer wants the projected repair cost to be the clear source of alarm. That means you need a subject that names the cost directly and prominently. Answer A does exactly this: "The two-million-dollar repair estimate" serves as the subject, making the cost the explicit cause of the trustees' alarm. The specific dollar figure also reinforces the magnitude that would logically trigger a review of reserve funds. A is correct. Answer B replaces the vague "this" with "the engineer's report," which emphasizes the existence of the report — not the cost within it. The question specifically says to avoid this interpretation. Answer C substitutes "the retaining wall's movement" as the cause of alarm, which the question also explicitly rules out as an unintended emphasis. This focuses on the physical damage, not the financial consequence. Answer D uses "this serious situation," which is even vaguer than the original "this" — it gestures at everything at once without isolating the cost estimate at all. Strategy tip: When a revision question specifies what should be emphasized, look for the answer that puts that exact idea in the subject position. Precision in the subject = precision in emphasis.

Question 3

The city has purchased forty electric buses, but only two charging stations are operating. This could prevent the transit agency from placing the entire fleet in service.

Which replacement for This most clearly identifies the condition that could delay the fleet's deployment?

This recent change in the city's bus fleet
This limitation on the transit agency's budget
This shortage of operating charging stations (correct answer)
This dependence on buses powered by electricity

Explanation: When a pronoun like this opens a sentence, it must refer back to something specific from the previous sentence — and your job is to find the replacement that captures that referent as precisely as possible. This question tests your ability to recognize vague pronoun reference and select a noun phrase that accurately names what the pronoun stands in for. Look back at the passage: the first sentence establishes that forty buses exist but only two charging stations are operating. That imbalance — too few charging stations — is exactly what could prevent the fleet from entering service. Choice C, "This shortage of operating charging stations," names that specific condition directly, making the cause-and-effect relationship between the two sentences unmistakably clear. It's the correct answer. Choice A, "This recent change in the city's bus fleet," misidentifies the problem. The purchase of electric buses isn't what causes the delay — the lack of infrastructure is. Choice B, "This limitation on the transit agency's budget," introduces a budget problem that the passage never mentions at all; this is a classic distractor that sounds plausible but has no textual support. Choice D, "This dependence on buses powered by electricity," frames the electric buses themselves as the problem, which again contradicts the passage — the issue isn't the type of bus but the missing charging capacity. A useful strategy: when a question asks you to replace a vague demonstrative pronoun (this, that, these), scan the previous sentence for the specific condition or event being described, not just its general topic. Wrong answers often drift into related but unsupported territory — your replacement must match the passage, not just the subject area.

Question 4

Turnaround times at county laboratories are shorter than private clinics.

Which revision creates a clear and logically parallel comparison?

The county laboratories are shorter than the turnaround times reported at private clinics.
Turnaround times at county laboratories are shorter than private clinics are.
Turnaround times at county laboratories are shorter than those at private clinics. (correct answer)
Turnaround times at county laboratories are shorter than the services at private clinics.

Explanation: When a sentence compares two things, both sides of the comparison must be grammatically and logically equivalent — this is called a parallel comparison. The original sentence fails because it compares "turnaround times" (a process) to "private clinics" (a place), which is like saying apples are faster than grocery stores. The fix in C works perfectly: "those at private clinics" uses the pronoun those as a stand-in for "turnaround times," so the sentence now correctly compares turnaround times to turnaround times. Both sides are logically and grammatically matched. A introduces a new error — it compares "county laboratories" (places) to "turnaround times at private clinics" (a process), flipping the original mistake rather than correcting it. B looks tempting because adding "are" at the end seems to balance the sentence, but it actually compares turnaround times to the clinics themselves ("private clinics are"), not to the clinics' turnaround times — the subject of comparison is still mismatched. D swaps in "services," which is vague and introduces a completely different category; turnaround times and services are not the same thing, so the comparison remains illogical. A useful strategy: whenever you spot a comparison in an editing question, immediately ask what is being compared on each side? Write them out mentally: "X is shorter than Y." If X and Y aren't the same type of thing, the sentence is faulty. Look for pronoun stand-ins like those, that, or ones — they're often the grammatically clean solution to faulty comparison errors.

Question 5

Mara emailed Lena after she reviewed the revised schedule. She asked her to post it on the staff portal.

The writer intends to say that Mara reviewed the schedule and then asked Lena to post it. Which revision most clearly conveys that meaning?

After reviewing the revised schedule, Mara emailed Lena and asked her to post the schedule on the staff portal. (correct answer)
After Lena reviewed the revised schedule, Mara emailed her and asked her to post it on the staff portal.
After reviewing the revised schedule, Mara emailed Lena, who asked her to post it on the staff portal.
Mara emailed Lena after she reviewed it and asked her to post the revised schedule on the staff portal.

Explanation: When a passage contains multiple pronouns referring to different people, your job is to identify pronoun ambiguity — situations where the reader can't tell who "she" or "her" refers to. The original passage fails because "she" and "her" could logically refer to either Mara or Lena. Revision questions like this ask you to restructure the sentence so the intended meaning is unmistakable. The strongest revision is A. By opening with "After reviewing the revised schedule, Mara..." the participial phrase is grammatically attached to Mara as the subject, making her the reviewer. The sentence then flows logically: Mara emailed Lena and asked her (Lena) to post the schedule. Replacing "it" with "the schedule" also eliminates any remaining ambiguity about what needs to be posted. B is wrong because it states that Lena reviewed the schedule — the opposite of the intended meaning. C uses the same correct opening as A, but the clause "who asked her to post it" makes Lena the one doing the asking, reversing the intended roles entirely. D reintroduces the original problem: "she reviewed it" and "asked her" bring back ambiguous pronouns, and it's still unclear who did what to whom. A useful strategy: whenever you see a sentence with two people and multiple pronouns, mentally substitute each person's name for every pronoun and check whether the meaning stays consistent and matches the stated intent. If swapping the names doesn't break the logic, the pronoun is ambiguous and needs fixing. A is the only choice that passes this test.

Question 6

Several pages of the manuscript are missing, so scholars cannot reconstruct the complete argument. , ink analysis of the surviving pages may still establish when the manuscript was produced.

Which transition best emphasizes that the surviving pages remain useful despite the manuscript's incompleteness?

Furthermore
Even so (correct answer)
Specifically
As a result

Explanation: When a question asks you to choose a transition, your job is to identify the logical relationship between the two sentences. Here, the first sentence presents an obstacle (missing pages prevent full reconstruction), and the second sentence introduces something that works in spite of that obstacle (ink analysis can still establish the date). You need a concessive transition — one that acknowledges a limitation but pivots to show value remains. "Even so" does exactly this. It signals: "Yes, there's a problem — but despite that, something useful is still possible." The word "still" in the second sentence reinforces this concessive logic, making B the clear fit. Looking at the distractors: A) "Furthermore" implies addition — it would suggest the second sentence builds on or adds to the first, as if both were positive developments. But the two sentences aren't building together; they're contrasting. C) "Specifically" signals that the second sentence narrows or details something from the first — as if ink analysis were an example of the incomplete reconstruction, which makes no logical sense here. D) "As a result" indicates cause-and-effect, implying that the manuscript's incompleteness caused the ink analysis — but these are independent facts. The ink analysis is a consolation, not a consequence. A good study tip: train yourself to identify the direction a transition pushes the argument — forward (furthermore, additionally), backward/contrast (even so, nevertheless, however), causal (as a result, therefore), or clarifying (specifically, in other words). Matching that direction to the relationship between sentences will eliminate wrong answers quickly.

Question 7

The museum told the foundation that they would publish the donor list in June.

The writer intends to identify the foundation as the organization that will publish the list. Which revision best preserves that meaning while eliminating the unclear pronoun reference?

The museum told the foundation that it would publish the donor list in June.
The foundation told the museum that the donor list would be published in June.
The museum and the foundation announced that they would publish the donor list in June.
The museum said that the foundation would publish the donor list in June. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a sentence contains two nouns that could each be replaced by the same pronoun, you have an ambiguous pronoun reference — one of the most common clarity errors tested on grammar exams. In the original sentence, "they" could logically refer to either the museum or the foundation, so a reader cannot determine who will publish the list. Your job is to find a revision that makes the foundation the clear publisher without distorting the sentence's meaning. D accomplishes this cleanly: "The museum said that the foundation would publish the donor list in June." By naming the foundation explicitly as the subject of the embedded clause, there's zero ambiguity. The museum is the speaker; the foundation is the actor. This is the most direct, efficient fix. A swaps "they" for "it," but "it" is still ambiguous — it could refer to either the museum or the foundation, so the pronoun problem remains completely unsolved. B restructures the sentence so the foundation is speaking, not publishing. That reverses the roles from the writer's intended meaning; now it sounds like the foundation is making an announcement, not that it's the one doing the publishing. C adds "the museum and the foundation" as a joint subject, which actually suggests both organizations will publish the list — the opposite of clarifying which one is responsible. A useful strategy: whenever you spot a pronoun like they, it, or them with multiple possible antecedents, ask "who is doing what?" and look for the answer choice that replaces the pronoun with the correct noun directly in the clause where the action happens.

Question 8

The council rejected the plan to convert the vacant depot into apartments, which surprised nearby residents.

The writer intends to say that the council's decision to reject the plan surprised the residents. Which revision makes that target unambiguous?

The council rejected the surprising plan to convert the vacant depot into apartments near the residents.
Nearby residents were surprised by the apartments proposed for conversion of the vacant depot.
The council's rejection of the plan to convert the vacant depot into apartments surprised nearby residents. (correct answer)
The council rejected the plan, and the proposed apartments near the vacant depot surprised residents.

Explanation: When a sentence contains a relative clause beginning with "which," you need to ask: what does "which" refer to? In English, a relative pronoun typically refers to the nearest preceding noun or noun phrase — and when that reference is ambiguous, the intended meaning gets lost. That's exactly the trap in the original sentence, where "which surprised nearby residents" could plausibly refer to the plan, the depot, the apartments, or the entire act of rejection. The revision in C works because it eliminates the ambiguous "which" entirely by restructuring the sentence so the subject itself carries the meaning. "The council's rejection" is a noun phrase that names the specific action directly, making it crystal clear that the rejection — not the plan, not the depot — is what surprised the residents. No relative clause, no ambiguity. Each wrong answer falls short in a distinct way. A moves "surprising" into a pre-noun modifier describing the plan itself, which contradicts the intended meaning — the plan wasn't described as surprising before the decision. It also awkwardly repositions "near the residents," distorting the geography. B shifts the focus entirely, making "apartments proposed for conversion" the apparent cause of surprise, which muddles the logic and loses the council's role. D splits the sentence into two clauses but introduces a new ambiguity: "the proposed apartments near the vacant depot surprised residents" suggests the apartments themselves were the surprise, not the council's decision. Your takeaway: whenever you see a "which" clause on a clarity or revision question, trace what "which" refers to. If it's fuzzy, look for an answer that converts the ambiguous clause into a concrete noun phrase — that's usually the correct fix.

Question 9

The proposal offers manufacturers tax credits, low-interest loans, and technical training. Unlike the former, the latter would require additional instructors but no new capital allocation.

The writer intends the second sentence to refer specifically to technical training. Which revision most clearly establishes that reference?

Unlike the other programs, the tax credits would require additional instructors but no new capital allocation.
Unlike the other programs, the low-interest loans would require additional instructors but no new capital allocation.
Unlike the current proposal, all three programs would require additional instructors but no new capital allocation.
Unlike the financial incentives, technical training would require additional instructors but no new capital allocation. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a passage uses the terms "former" and "latter," it's referring back to previously listed items — "former" means the first item(s) mentioned, and "latter" means the last item mentioned. The problem here is that three items are listed: tax credits, low-interest loans, and technical training. Grammatically, "former" and "latter" only work cleanly with two items. When three are listed, using these terms creates ambiguity — does "the former" mean just tax credits, or both tax credits and low-interest loans? The revision must eliminate this vagueness entirely by naming the intended referent directly. Answer D accomplishes exactly this. By replacing the ambiguous pronoun pair with specific nouns — "financial incentives" (grouping tax credits and low-interest loans together) and "technical training" — the sentence makes the contrast unmistakably clear. The reader immediately understands what's being compared and what requires additional instructors. Answer A fails because it specifies "tax credits" as the subject, but the writer intends technical training to be highlighted — not tax credits. Answer B makes the same structural error, naming "low-interest loans" as the referent instead of technical training. Both A and B actually contradict the writer's stated intention. Answer C goes in the opposite direction, claiming all three programs require instructors, which directly contradicts the purpose of the sentence — to single out technical training as distinct from the others. A useful strategy: whenever you see "former/latter" or vague pronouns like "the one" or "the latter" in a revision question, ask yourself exactly which noun each term points to. If there's any doubt, the revision should replace the pronoun with the specific noun — clarity always wins on these questions.

Question 10

Each analyst sent a forecast to the supervisor before they compared it with the previous quarter's figures.

The writer intends to say that the supervisor compared each forecast with the earlier figures. Which revision makes both pronoun targets clear?

Each analyst sent a forecast to the supervisor, who compared it with the previous quarter's figures. (correct answer)
Each analyst, who compared it with the previous quarter's figures, sent a forecast to the supervisor.
Before they compared it with the previous quarter's figures, each analyst sent the supervisor a forecast.
Each analyst sent the supervisor a forecast before they compared the figures with the previous quarter.

Explanation: Pronoun reference questions test whether every pronoun in a sentence points clearly and unambiguously to its intended antecedent. When you see a sentence with multiple nouns and pronouns like "they" or "it," ask yourself: could a reader reasonably link each pronoun to more than one noun? If so, the sentence needs revision. In the original sentence, "they" could refer to either the analysts or the supervisor, and "it" could refer to either the forecast or something else entirely. The writer's intention — that the supervisor did the comparing — is completely buried. Your job is to find the revision that eliminates both ambiguities simultaneously. Choice A solves both problems elegantly by using a relative clause: "the supervisor, who compared it with the previous quarter's figures." Now "who" unmistakably refers to the supervisor, and "it" clearly refers to the forecast just mentioned. Both pronoun targets are explicit. This is your answer. Choice B is structurally backward — it places the relative clause ("who compared it") after "each analyst," making the analyst appear to be the one doing the comparing, which contradicts the writer's intention entirely. Choice C keeps the original "they" and "it" in the opening clause, so both ambiguities remain completely unresolved. Rearranging word order alone never fixes a pronoun reference problem. Choice D removes "it" but still leaves "they" vague — a reader still can't tell whether the analysts or the supervisor compared the figures, so only one of the two ambiguities is addressed. As a strategy, remember that fixing pronoun ambiguity usually requires replacing the pronoun with a noun or restructuring so one specific antecedent is the only logical option — reordering clauses rarely does the job alone.