English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Proofreading For High Impact Errors
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Proofreading For High Impact ErrorsQuestion 1 of 10

Only the contracts lacking authorized signatures were returned to the vendors; all other contracts were filed.

Which revision expresses this meaning with correct relative-clause punctuation?

The contracts, which lacked authorized signatures, were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
The contracts, that lacked authorized signatures, were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
The contracts that lacked authorized signatures were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
The contracts which lacked authorized signatures, were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Proofreading For High Impact Errors

Practice Proofreading For High Impact Errors 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 Proofreading For High Impact Errors, 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

Only the contracts lacking authorized signatures were returned to the vendors; all other contracts were filed.

Which revision expresses this meaning with correct relative-clause punctuation?

  1. The contracts, which lacked authorized signatures, were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
  2. The contracts, that lacked authorized signatures, were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
  3. The contracts that lacked authorized signatures were returned to the vendors; the others were filed. (correct answer)
  4. The contracts which lacked authorized signatures, were returned to the vendors; the others were filed.
Explanation: When a relative clause restricts which members of a group you're talking about — narrowing down a larger set — it must be a restrictive clause, written without commas. When a clause merely adds extra information about an already-defined group, it's nonrestrictive and requires commas. The original sentence tells you that only some contracts were returned: those lacking signatures. That "only some" signal means you need a restrictive clause. Choice C gets this exactly right. "The contracts that lacked authorized signatures" uses that without commas, identifying precisely which contracts were returned. The clause restricts the noun, and the punctuation reflects that — making C the correct answer. Choice A uses commas around "which lacked authorized signatures," turning the clause nonrestrictive. This implies all contracts lacked signatures and were returned — the opposite of the original meaning. The commas erase the distinction the sentence depends on. Choice B commits two errors: it uses commas (nonrestrictive punctuation) while also using that, which is reserved for restrictive clauses. Nonrestrictive clauses require which, not that, so this mixes incompatible rules and distorts the meaning just as A does. Choice D drops the opening comma but keeps a comma after "signatures," creating an asymmetrical, grammatically broken construction. Additionally, which without any commas is considered nonstandard in American English for restrictive clauses — that is the conventional choice there. A useful rule of thumb: if you can remove the clause and the sentence still identifies the same group, use commas + which. If removing the clause changes who or what you're talking about, skip the commas and use that.

Question 2

The accountant prepared the figures last week. The board is scheduled to meet tomorrow, and the chair plans to request an explanation for any inconsistency.

Which revision is fully correct in tense, agreement, and punctuation?

  1. When the board will meet tomorrow, it will review the figures the accountant has prepared last week. If any figure appears inconsistent, the chair will request an explanation.
  2. When the board meets tomorrow it reviews the figures the accountant prepared last week. If any figure appear inconsistent, the chair will request an explanation.
  3. When the board meets tomorrow, it will review the figures the accountant prepared last week. If any figure appears inconsistent, the chair will request an explanation. (correct answer)
  4. When the board met tomorrow, it would review the figures the accountant had prepared last week. If any figure appears inconsistent the chair will request an explanation.
Explanation: When revising sentences, you need to check three things simultaneously: verb tense consistency, subject-verb agreement, and punctuation. Missing even one of these creates an error. The passage establishes a clear timeline: the figures were prepared last week (past), and the meeting happens tomorrow (future). In English, a time clause beginning with "when" that refers to a scheduled future event uses simple present ("meets"), while the main clause uses future tense ("will review"). This is a fixed rule — you don't use future tense inside a "when" clause. The accountant's action is completed past, so "prepared" (simple past) is correct. The conditional "if any figure appears" uses singular because "figure" is singular, requiring "appears." Finally, introductory clauses like "When the board meets tomorrow" must be followed by a comma. Choice C satisfies all three criteria: correct tense sequence ("meets...will review...prepared"), proper subject-verb agreement ("figure appears"), and the required comma after the introductory clause. That makes C the answer. Choice A fails immediately because "when the board will meet" incorrectly places future tense inside the "when" clause. It also misuses "has prepared" (present perfect) for a completed past action. Choice B drops the necessary comma after "When the board meets tomorrow" and breaks agreement with "any figure appear" — a singular subject demands a singular verb. Choice D uses "met" and "would review," shifting everything to past/conditional, which contradicts the word "tomorrow" and creates a logical impossibility. Your strategy: when editing for tense, map out the timeline before reading the choices — past, present, or future — then verify agreement and punctuation separately.

Question 3

The forecast appeared conservative, however, its underlying assumptions were not documented.

Which revision most appropriately punctuates the relationship between the two independent clauses?

  1. The forecast appeared conservative; however, its underlying assumptions were not documented. (correct answer)
  2. The forecast appeared conservative. However; its underlying assumptions were not documented.
  3. The forecast appeared conservative: however, its underlying assumptions were not documented.
  4. The forecast appeared conservative, however its underlying assumptions were not documented.
Explanation: When two independent clauses are joined by a conjunctive adverb like however, therefore, or furthermore, punctuation must signal both the separation of complete thoughts and the transitional role of that connecting word. This is a classic comma splice and semicolon question. The original sentence uses only a comma before however, which creates a comma splice — two independent clauses incorrectly joined by just a comma. The fix requires a stronger separator. Option A corrects this perfectly: a semicolon closes the first independent clause, however introduces the contrasting second clause, and a comma after however sets it off as a transitional word. This is the standard, accepted pattern — semicolon + conjunctive adverb + comma. Option B places a period after the first clause, which is structurally acceptable for separation, but then uses a semicolon after however — "However; its underlying assumptions..." — which is wrong. A semicolon doesn't belong between a conjunctive adverb and the clause it introduces. Option C uses a colon before however, which is incorrect here. Colons introduce explanations, lists, or elaborations — they don't signal contrast, and however signals contrast. The colon misrepresents the logical relationship between clauses. Option D removes the comma after however, leaving "however its underlying assumptions" as an uninterrupted run-on. Without the comma, however loses its identity as a transitional word and blurs into the clause awkwardly. A handy rule to remember: whenever you use a conjunctive adverb to join two independent clauses, the formula is always semicolon before, comma after — never a lone comma on either side.

Question 4

The set of revised procedures, along with two explanatory appendices, are ready for publication, but they does not address the new retention rule.

Which revision most effectively corrects the agreement errors while preserving the sentence's intended meaning?

  1. The set of revised procedures, along with two explanatory appendices, are ready for publication, but it does not address the new retention rule.
  2. The set of revised procedures, along with two explanatory appendices, is ready for publication, but it does not address the new retention rule. (correct answer)
  3. The set of revised procedures, along with two explanatory appendices, is ready for publication, but they do not address the new retention rule.
  4. The set of revised procedures, along with two explanatory appendices, are ready for publication, but they do not address the new retention rule.
Explanation: When a sentence contains a prepositional phrase like "along with two explanatory appendices" inserted between the subject and verb, you need to identify the true grammatical subject before checking agreement. Phrases introduced by "along with," "as well as," or "in addition to" are parenthetical — they don't change the subject. Here, the true subject is "the set," which is singular. This means both the verb and any pronoun referring back to it must be singular. The sentence has two agreement problems: the verb "are" (should be "is" to match "the set") and the pronoun "they does" (a double error — "they" is plural but paired with the singular "does"). The corrected sentence needs "is" for the verb and "it does not" for the pronoun reference, both agreeing with the singular "the set." That's exactly what B delivers — making it the correct answer. A fixes the pronoun ("it does not") but leaves the plural verb "are," so subject-verb agreement is still broken. C correctly changes "are" to "is" but keeps "they do not" — a plural pronoun referring back to the singular subject "the set," so pronoun-antecedent agreement fails. D leaves both errors intact: "are" and "they do not" are both plural, neither agreeing with the singular "the set." A useful strategy: whenever you spot a long phrase wedged between subject and verb, mentally cross it out. Ask: "What is the core subject?" Then check that every verb and pronoun in the sentence agrees with that core subject — not with the nearest noun in the intervening phrase.

Question 5

The auditors arrived on Tuesday. Before their arrival, the director approved the transfer and notified the legal department.

Which sentence most clearly establishes the sequence of these past events in a formal report?

  1. By the time the auditors arrived on Tuesday, the director approved the transfer and notified the legal department.
  2. By the time the auditors arrived on Tuesday, the director has approved the transfer and has notified the legal department.
  3. By the time the auditors arrived on Tuesday, the director had approved the transfer and then notified the legal department as they walked in.
  4. By the time the auditors arrived on Tuesday, the director had approved the transfer and had notified the legal department. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a formal passage describes events that happened at different points in the past, English grammar requires you to signal which past event came first. The tool for this is the past perfect tense (had + past participle), which anchors an earlier action relative to a later one expressed in simple past. Here, the sequence is clear: the director acted before the auditors arrived. To express this layering correctly in a formal report, the earlier actions (approving, notifying) must appear in past perfect, while the reference point (the auditors' arrival) stays in simple past. Option D does exactly this — "had approved" and "had notified" both signal completion before the Tuesday arrival, making the timeline unambiguous and tonally appropriate for formal writing. Option A fails because it uses simple past ("approved," "notified") for both events, collapsing the timeline and suggesting everything happened simultaneously rather than sequentially. Option B incorrectly uses present perfect ("has approved," "has notified"), which connects past actions to the present moment — grammatically inconsistent with a past reference point ("arrived") and inappropriate in a formal report about concluded events. Option C uses the correct past perfect for the first verb but then introduces "as they walked in," which contradicts the passage entirely — the director acted before the auditors arrived, not as they entered. A useful pattern to remember: whenever you see "by the time [simple past event]," the companion clause almost always demands past perfect. Think of past perfect as the grammar's way of saying "this was already done." Watch for answer choices that mix tenses inconsistently — that's the most common trap in sequence-of-events questions.

Question 6

Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz were the only final reviewers. The final reviewers, Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz was asked to certify the figures.

Which revision correctly punctuates the appositive and fixes the agreement error?

  1. The final reviewers Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz were asked to certify the figures.
  2. The final reviewers, Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz, were asked to certify the figures. (correct answer)
  3. The final reviewers Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz, were asked to certify the figures.
  4. The final reviewers—Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz—was asked to certify the figures.
Explanation: When a sentence contains an appositive — a noun phrase that renames or identifies the noun before it — you need two things: correct punctuation around the appositive and subject-verb agreement between the true subject and its verb. Both issues appear here, so you must solve them together. The subject is "the final reviewers," which is plural. The appositive "Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz" simply identifies who those reviewers are. Because the appositive is a non-essential clarification (the sentence would still be grammatically complete without it), it must be set off by a matching pair of commas — one before and one after. This makes B correct: "The final reviewers, Maya Chen and Luis Ortiz, were asked to certify the figures." The plural subject "reviewers" correctly pairs with "were," and the appositive is properly enclosed. Here's why the other options fail. A drops both commas entirely, leaving the appositive unset and making the sentence harder to parse — the appositive interrupts the subject-verb flow and needs punctuation to signal that. C places a comma after the appositive but omits the opening comma before it, creating an asymmetrical and confusing construction; appositives require commas on both sides, not just one. D uses em-dashes correctly as an alternative punctuation style for appositives, but then uses the singular verb "was" with the plural subject "reviewers" — this fixes the punctuation while ignoring the agreement error. A useful strategy: when you spot an appositive, always check for a matching pair of punctuation marks (both commas or both dashes), and verify that the verb agrees with the subject, not with the nouns inside the appositive.

Question 7

Neither the regional managers nor the compliance officer have signed the disclosure, and the officer, together with the managers, are expected to explain the delay.

Which revision corrects both subject-verb agreement errors?

  1. Neither the regional managers nor the compliance officer have signed the disclosure, and the officer, together with the managers, is expected to explain the delay.
  2. Neither the regional managers nor the compliance officer has signed the disclosure, and the officer, together with the managers, are expected to explain the delay.
  3. Neither the regional managers nor the compliance officer has signed the disclosure, and the officer, together with the managers, is expected to explain the delay. (correct answer)
  4. Neither the regional managers nor the compliance officer have signed the disclosure, and the officer, together with the managers, are expected to explain the delay.
Explanation: When you spot "neither...nor" or phrases like "together with" in a sentence, your first instinct should be to identify the true grammatical subject and apply the correct agreement rule — these constructions are classic agreement traps. For neither...nor constructions, the verb agrees with the subject closest to it (the "proximity rule"). In the first clause, "neither the regional managers nor the compliance officer" — the nearest subject is the singular "compliance officer," so the verb must be singular: has signed, not have signed. For the second clause, phrases like "together with," "along with," and "as well as" are parenthetical — they don't change the grammatical subject. The true subject is "the officer" (singular), so despite mentioning the managers, the verb must be singular: is expected, not are expected. Choice C applies both rules correctly: "has signed" (singular, matching "compliance officer") and "is expected" (singular, matching "officer"). This makes C the answer that corrects both errors. Choice A fixes the second clause ("is expected") but leaves the first error intact — "have signed" still disagrees with the singular "compliance officer." Choice B fixes the first clause ("has signed") but leaves "are expected," which incorrectly treats the parenthetical phrase as a compound subject. Choice D changes nothing meaningful and preserves both original errors. A helpful strategy: whenever you see "neither...nor," underline the noun immediately before the verb — that's your agreement anchor. And treat "together with" like a pair of parentheses; mentally remove it to find the real subject.

Question 8

The forecasts belong to two departments, while the projections belong to one chief financial officer.

Which sentence uses apostrophes correctly to show the stated ownership?

  1. The two department's forecasts were inconsistent with the chief financial officers' projections.
  2. The two departments forecasts were inconsistent with the chief financial officer's projections.
  3. The two departments' forecasts were inconsistent with the chief financial officers' projections.
  4. The two departments' forecasts were inconsistent with the chief financial officer's projections. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks you to show possession with apostrophes, your first step is to identify how many owners there are for each thing being owned. That count determines exactly where the apostrophe goes. The passage tells you the forecasts belong to two departments (plural owner) and the projections belong to one chief financial officer (singular owner). For a plural noun already ending in s, you add only an apostrophe after the s — so departments'. For a singular noun, you add 's — so chief financial officer's. That logic points directly to D: "The two departments' forecasts were inconsistent with the chief financial officer's projections." Both ownership relationships are handled correctly. Here's where the distractors go wrong. A writes department's (singular possessive), which contradicts the passage's two departments, and officers' (plural possessive), which contradicts the one CFO — so both apostrophes are wrong. B omits the apostrophe on departments entirely, making it look like a plain plural modifier rather than a possessive, and it also uses officer's correctly — so it gets one right but fails the other. C gets departments' right but then writes officers', incorrectly implying multiple chief financial officers own the projections together, which contradicts the passage. A useful rule of thumb: before placing any apostrophe, ask yourself "how many owners?" Singular gets 's; plural already ending in s gets just '. Matching your apostrophe placement to the stated number of owners will protect you from every trap in questions like this.

Question 9

Which version most clearly and correctly punctuates a list whose individual items contain commas?

  1. The report identifies three risks: permit delays in Reno, Nevada; labor disputes in Dayton, Ohio; and cash shortages in both locations. (correct answer)
  2. The report identifies three risks, permit delays in Reno, Nevada; labor disputes in Dayton, Ohio; and cash shortages in both locations.
  3. The report identifies three risks; permit delays in Reno, Nevada; labor disputes in Dayton, Ohio; and cash shortages in both locations.
  4. The report identifies: three risks—permit delays in Reno, Nevada; labor disputes in Dayton, Ohio; and cash shortages in both locations.
Explanation: When a list contains items that already include commas internally, standard commas as list separators create ambiguity — readers can't tell where one item ends and the next begins. The solution is to "upgrade" your separators to semicolons, reserving them specifically for this role. This is called the serial semicolon with complex list items. Choice A handles this perfectly. The colon after "risks" correctly introduces the list (a full independent clause precedes it), and semicolons separate the three items — each of which contains a city-state comma. The structure is clean and unambiguous: readers can immediately identify the three distinct risks. Choice B replaces the introducing colon with a comma, which is grammatically wrong. A comma cannot introduce a formal list following an independent clause the way a colon can — it creates a run-on feel and weakens the sentence's structure. Choice C uses a semicolon after "risks" instead of a colon. Semicolons join independent clauses or separate complex list items; they don't introduce lists. "The report identifies three risks" is not independent of what follows — it's an incomplete thought requiring a colon to open the list. Choice D places the colon after "identifies," which interrupts the verb-object relationship. The rule is clear: never place a colon directly after a verb. The dash then introduces further awkward restructuring that doesn't solve anything. Strategy tip: When you spot city-state pairs (or any comma-containing phrases) inside a list, immediately think "semicolons as separators, colon as introducer." Also remember — colons must follow a complete clause, never a bare verb.

Question 10

Which sentence correctly handles both agreement in the relative clause and the boundary between the independent clauses?

  1. She is one of the analysts who reviews quarterly filings; she has consistently identified discrepancies.
  2. She is one of the analysts who review quarterly filings; she has consistently identified discrepancies. (correct answer)
  3. She is one of the analysts who review quarterly filings, she has consistently identified discrepancies.
  4. She is one of the analysts who reviews quarterly filings, she has consistently identified discrepancies.
Explanation: This question tests two distinct grammar skills at once: subject-verb agreement inside a relative clause, and the punctuation required to join two independent clauses. Start with the relative clause. The sentence reads "one of the analysts who   quarterly filings." The antecedent of who is analysts (plural), not one (singular). The logic: there is a group of analysts, all of whom review filings — she simply belongs to that group. Therefore, the verb must be plural: review, not reviews. This is a classic trap where writers mistakenly match the verb to the nearest singular noun (one) rather than the true antecedent (analysts). Now for punctuation. The sentence connects two complete thoughts: "She is one of the analysts who review quarterly filings" and "she has consistently identified discrepancies." Two independent clauses cannot be joined with only a comma — that creates a comma splice. The correct fix is a semicolon, which links related independent clauses without a coordinating conjunction. Answer B applies both rules correctly: plural review for the relative clause and a semicolon between the two independent clauses — making it the right choice. Answer A uses the semicolon correctly but incorrectly matches reviews to one rather than analysts. Answers C and D both commit comma splices by joining independent clauses with only a comma; D also misuses reviews, making it doubly wrong. Your strategy: when you see "one of the pluralnounplural noun who," always ask yourself what the who refers to — it refers to the plural noun, so the verb must be plural. Train yourself to look past the word one.