English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Using Commas
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Using CommasQuestion 1 of 10

Lena has exactly one direct supervisor. The supervisor's name is Dr. Okafor.

Which sentence correctly uses commas to reflect the information in the passage?

Lena's supervisor Dr. Okafor approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
Lena's supervisor, Dr. Okafor approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
Lena's supervisor Dr. Okafor, approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
Lena's supervisor, Dr. Okafor, approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Using Commas

Practice Using Commas 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 Using Commas, 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

Lena has exactly one direct supervisor. The supervisor's name is Dr. Okafor.

Which sentence correctly uses commas to reflect the information in the passage?

  1. Lena's supervisor Dr. Okafor approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
  2. Lena's supervisor, Dr. Okafor approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
  3. Lena's supervisor Dr. Okafor, approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened.
  4. Lena's supervisor, Dr. Okafor, approved the revised protocol before the laboratory reopened. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a noun is followed by a name or title that identifies who that noun refers to, you're dealing with apposition. The key question is always: is the appositive essential (restrictive) or non-essential (non-restrictive)? If removing it would leave the sentence ambiguous or incomplete, it's essential — no commas. If it's just extra identifying information about someone already uniquely identified, it's non-essential — and you must set it off with commas on both sides. The passage tells you Lena has exactly one supervisor. That means "Dr. Okafor" isn't narrowing down which supervisor — she only has one. The name is purely additional information. Because of this, "Dr. Okafor" is a non-restrictive appositive and must be enclosed in commas before and after. That makes D the correct answer: Lena's supervisor, Dr. Okafor, approved the revised protocol. A uses no commas at all, which would imply "Dr. Okafor" is essential — as if Lena had multiple supervisors and you need the name to specify which one. That contradicts the passage. B places a comma before "Dr. Okafor" but not after, which incorrectly splits the subject from the verb with only an opening comma, leaving the appositive improperly closed. C does the reverse — no opening comma but a closing one — which is equally unbalanced and grammatically incorrect. A good rule of thumb: non-restrictive appositives always need two commas, acting like parentheses around the inserted phrase. If you catch yourself using only one comma around an appositive, treat that as a red flag to reassess.

Question 2

Which sentence correctly punctuates the introductory participial phrase and its compound object?

  1. Having reviewed the witness statements and the security footage, the investigator revised her timeline. (correct answer)
  2. Having reviewed, the witness statements and the security footage the investigator revised her timeline.
  3. Having reviewed the witness statements, and the security footage, the investigator revised her timeline.
  4. Having reviewed the witness statements and the security footage the investigator, revised her timeline.
Explanation: When you encounter a question about participial phrases, your job is to identify three things: where the phrase begins, where it ends, and how its internal parts connect. A participial phrase functions as an adjective and must be separated from the main clause by a comma — but you shouldn't insert extra commas within the phrase unless grammar demands it. In this sentence, "Having reviewed" opens the participial phrase, and "the witness statements and the security footage" is its compound direct object — two items joined by a simple coordinating conjunction (and). No comma belongs between them because they form a single, unified grammatical unit. The phrase ends just before the subject "the investigator," so one comma there correctly signals the transition into the main clause. That's exactly what A does, making it the correct answer. B is wrong because it places a comma after "reviewed," severing the verb from its objects and making the phrase grammatically incomplete — the investigator reviewed nothing, which changes the meaning entirely. C adds an unnecessary comma before "and the security footage," implying that "and the security footage" is a parenthetical element or a third item in a series. Since there are only two objects joined by and, this comma is intrusive and misleading. D omits the crucial comma after "footage," failing to set off the introductory phrase from the main clause at all. Then it inserts a comma between the subject ("the investigator") and its verb ("revised"), which incorrectly breaks apart the main clause. As a quick rule of thumb: one comma after the entire introductory phrase, zero commas inside a simple two-part compound object joined by and.

Question 3

A collection contains several essays. Only the essay titled "On Keeping a Notebook" was selected for the anthology.

Which sentence correctly punctuates the essay title, given the information in the passage?

  1. The essay, "On Keeping a Notebook," was selected for the department's annual anthology.
  2. The essay, "On Keeping a Notebook" was selected for the department's annual anthology.
  3. The essay "On Keeping a Notebook," was selected for the department's annual anthology.
  4. The essay "On Keeping a Notebook" was selected for the department's annual anthology. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a title directly follows a noun it identifies (like essay, novel, or song), you're dealing with an appositive — a word or phrase that renames the noun beside it. The key grammar question here is whether that appositive is restrictive or nonrestrictive, because that determines whether commas are needed. A restrictive appositive limits or specifies which one you mean and is essential to the sentence's meaning — no commas needed. A nonrestrictive appositive simply adds extra information about something already uniquely identified — set it off with commas. The passage tells you the collection contains several essays, so the title "On Keeping a Notebook" is doing essential work: it specifies which essay was selected. Remove the title and you lose critical meaning. That makes it restrictive — no commas should surround it. D correctly reflects this: The essay "On Keeping a Notebook" was selected... stands alone without any commas interrupting the noun-appositive relationship. A uses commas on both sides of the title, treating it as nonrestrictive — but since the title is essential here, those commas incorrectly suggest the information is optional. B places a comma before the title but not after, creating an asymmetrical and grammatically inconsistent construction. C omits the opening comma but adds one after the closing quotation mark, which similarly breaks the rule: restrictive appositives need no commas, not just one. A handy test: if you can remove the title and the sentence still clearly identifies what you're talking about, use commas. If removing it creates ambiguity, skip them entirely — as in D.

Question 4

Which sentence correctly punctuates the series of subordinate clauses?

  1. The committee asked, whether rates had risen, whether enrollment had fallen, and whether staffing had changed.
  2. The committee asked whether rates had risen whether enrollment had fallen, and whether staffing had changed.
  3. The committee asked whether rates had risen, whether enrollment had fallen and, whether staffing had changed.
  4. The committee asked whether rates had risen, whether enrollment had fallen, and whether staffing had changed. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a verb like asked introduces a series of indirect questions (subordinate clauses beginning with whether), you're dealing with a list structure — and lists follow the same comma rules as any other series: separate each item with a comma, and place a comma before the coordinating conjunction (and) that precedes the final item. Answer D applies this correctly: "The committee asked whether rates had risen, whether enrollment had fallen, and whether staffing had changed." Each whether clause is treated as a parallel list item, with commas cleanly separating them. The sentence reads smoothly because the punctuation mirrors the structure. Answer A goes wrong immediately by placing a comma after asked — right before the first whether clause. That comma incorrectly separates the verb from its object (the entire series of clauses), as if asked were being set off from something parenthetical. No comma belongs there. Answer B drops the comma after the first clause entirely, running "whether rates had risen" straight into "whether enrollment had fallen" without any separation. This creates a choppy, ambiguous read and violates the rule that items in a series must be separated. Answer C misplaces the comma before and by inserting it after fallen and before whether — meaning the comma appears inside the conjunction phrase rather than before it. Writing "fallen and, whether" breaks apart the natural flow and incorrectly punctuates the transition to the final clause. A handy rule of thumb: whenever you see a series of parallel clauses, diagram them mentally as a simple list and apply standard series-comma rules. The structure of the clauses doesn't change the punctuation logic.

Question 5

The city has only one public observatory, the Meridian Observatory. The fact that it reopened in May is additional information.

Which sentence correctly punctuates the relative clause?

  1. The Meridian Observatory which reopened in May now offers evening programs on Fridays.
  2. The Meridian Observatory, which reopened in May now offers evening programs on Fridays.
  3. The Meridian Observatory, which reopened in May, now offers evening programs on Fridays. (correct answer)
  4. The Meridian Observatory which reopened in May, now offers evening programs on Fridays.
Explanation: When you see a relative clause beginning with which, your first job is to decide whether it's restrictive (essential to identifying the noun) or non-restrictive (extra information that could be removed without changing the core meaning). The passage tells you directly: the city has only one public observatory, so "Meridian Observatory" is already fully identified. The clause "which reopened in May" adds bonus information — it's non-restrictive, and non-restrictive clauses must be set off by commas on both sides. Choice C does exactly this: a comma before which and a comma after May, cleanly wrapping the parenthetical clause. The main clause — "The Meridian Observatory now offers evening programs on Fridays" — reads perfectly if you remove the bracketed information, which confirms the punctuation is correct. Choice A has no commas at all, making the clause look restrictive, as if there were multiple observatories and this clause specifies which one — but there isn't. Choice B places a comma before which but omits the closing comma after May, leaving the clause improperly open and fusing it with the main verb now offers. Choice D does the opposite: no opening comma before which, but a stray comma after May — this orphans the verb phrase and creates a comma splice-like break in the wrong place. A reliable tip: whenever you use which (not that) to introduce a clause, you almost always need commas around it. If you can lift the clause out and the sentence still makes sense and refers to the same thing, you need those two commas — one before, one after.

Question 6

The policy applies only to applications that arrive after Friday; applications received by Friday follow the regular schedule.

Which sentence correctly uses commas to preserve the intended restriction?

  1. Applications, that arrive after Friday, will be reviewed during the following cycle.
  2. Applications that arrive after Friday will be reviewed during the following cycle. (correct answer)
  3. Applications, that arrive after Friday will be reviewed during the following cycle.
  4. Applications that arrive after Friday, will be reviewed during the following cycle.
Explanation: When a clause identifies which members of a group you mean — narrowing down from a broader category — it's called a restrictive clause, and it must never be set off with commas. Commas signal that the information is optional background detail (a non-restrictive clause), which would change the meaning entirely. In this passage, only some applications are under discussion — specifically those arriving after Friday. The phrase "that arrive after Friday" is doing essential work: it restricts which applications get the delayed review. Without it, the sentence would falsely imply that all applications follow the new cycle, contradicting the passage. Because the clause is restrictive, no commas belong anywhere around it — making B the correct choice. A is wrong because placing commas around "that arrive after Friday" treats the clause as non-restrictive, implying it's parenthetical information about all applications rather than a defining restriction. This directly contradicts the passage's meaning. C is wrong for a related reason — the comma after "Applications" suggests a pause that separates the subject from its essential modifier, creating a fragment-like break and signaling (incorrectly) that the clause is supplementary. D is wrong because the comma after "Friday" interrupts the sentence between the subject and its verb with no grammatical justification. Nothing there warrants a pause — it's simply misplaced punctuation that disrupts sentence flow without matching any comma rule. Study tip: Ask yourself, "If I removed this clause, would the sentence still identify the right group?" If removing it changes or loses the meaning, it's restrictive — skip the commas entirely.

Question 7

Which version correctly punctuates the introductory clause without inserting an unnecessary comma into the predicate?

  1. Although the forecast predicted clear skies the guide, packed rain gear and checked the emergency radio.
  2. Although the forecast predicted clear skies, the guide packed rain gear and checked the emergency radio. (correct answer)
  3. Although, the forecast predicted clear skies, the guide packed rain gear and checked the emergency radio.
  4. Although the forecast predicted clear skies, the guide packed rain gear, and checked the emergency radio.
Explanation: When you see a question about introductory clauses, your job is to identify where the dependent clause ends and the independent clause begins — that's where the comma belongs, and only there. "Although the forecast predicted clear skies" is a subordinate (dependent) clause introduced by the subordinating conjunction "although." It cannot stand alone as a sentence. The independent clause — the part that can stand alone — is "the guide packed rain gear and checked the emergency radio." A single comma after the introductory clause separates these two parts cleanly, which is exactly what B does. The predicate "packed rain gear and checked the emergency radio" lists two actions performed by the same subject, connected by "and," so no comma is needed between them. A misplaces the comma entirely, dropping it mid-predicate after "guide" rather than after the introductory clause. This artificially splits the subject from its verb, which is a serious punctuation error. C places a comma directly after "Although," which is wrong. "Although" is a subordinating conjunction that launches a dependent clause — you never separate it from the clause it introduces with a comma. D correctly places the comma after the introductory clause but then adds an unnecessary comma before "and checked." In a two-item compound predicate (same subject, two verbs joined by "and"), no comma precedes "and." A comma there would only be appropriate in a series of three or more items. A useful rule of thumb: after an introductory clause, place one comma — right at the boundary between dependent and independent — and don't let any extras creep into a simple two-part predicate.

Question 8

Which sentence correctly sets off the nonessential parenthetical phrase?

  1. The revised schedule, contrary to the director's prediction, reduced delays at all three checkpoints. (correct answer)
  2. The revised schedule contrary to the director's prediction reduced delays at all three checkpoints.
  3. The revised schedule, contrary to the director's prediction reduced delays at all three checkpoints.
  4. The revised schedule contrary to the director's prediction, reduced delays at all three checkpoints.
Explanation: When a sentence contains a nonessential parenthetical phrase — an interrupting expression that adds extra information but isn't required for the sentence to make sense — you must set it off with a matching pair of commas, one on each side. Think of the commas as parentheses: they always come in pairs. In this sentence, "contrary to the director's prediction" is that nonessential phrase. You can remove it entirely — The revised schedule reduced delays at all three checkpoints — and the sentence still reads perfectly. Because it's nonessential, it needs to be enclosed, not just marked on one side. Choice A correctly places a comma both before "contrary" and after "prediction," fully enclosing the parenthetical. This is the right answer. Choice B omits both commas entirely, so the parenthetical phrase bleeds into the sentence with no separation, making it harder to parse and grammatically incorrect. Choice C places a comma before the phrase but not after it, leaving it with only an opening "fence" and no closing one — the reader loses track of where the interruption ends and the main clause resumes. Choice D does the opposite: it skips the opening comma but places one after the phrase, which makes "contrary to the director's prediction" look like it attaches to "The revised schedule" without any signal that an interruption has begun. A useful strategy: whenever you spot a midsentence phrase that seems removable, mentally delete it and check if the sentence still works. If it does, the phrase is nonessential — and you'll need two commas, not one, to frame it properly.

Question 9

Which sentence correctly uses commas after the introductory element, around the nonessential clause, and within the final series?

  1. After the final rehearsal Maya's accompanist, who had flown in from Denver, suggested changes to the tempo, dynamics, and phrasing.
  2. After the final rehearsal, Maya's accompanist, who had flown in from Denver suggested changes to the tempo, dynamics, and phrasing.
  3. After the final rehearsal, Maya's accompanist, who had flown in from Denver, suggested changes to the tempo, dynamics, and phrasing. (correct answer)
  4. After the final rehearsal, Maya's accompanist, who had flown in from Denver, suggested changes to the tempo dynamics, and phrasing.
Explanation: When a sentence contains multiple punctuation rules at once — an introductory phrase, a nonessential clause, and a series — you need to verify that each rule is applied correctly, not just one or two of them. Here's what correct usage looks like: an introductory adverbial phrase like "After the final rehearsal" requires a comma before the main clause begins. A nonessential (nonrestrictive) clause — one that adds bonus information but could be removed without changing the sentence's core meaning — must be enclosed in commas on both sides. Finally, items in a series should be separated by commas, including a comma before the final "and" (the Oxford comma), giving you the pattern: tempo, dynamics, and phrasing. Choice C satisfies all three requirements: a comma after "rehearsal," commas surrounding "who had flown in from Denver," and commas separating all three items in the series. That's your correct answer. Choice A omits the comma after "rehearsal," so the introductory phrase runs directly into the main clause — a common error that leaves the reader briefly confused about where the sentence pivots. Choice B correctly places a comma after "rehearsal" but fails to close the nonessential clause with a comma after "Denver," leaving the clause improperly attached to what follows. Choice D correctly handles the introductory phrase and the nonessential clause, but drops the comma after "tempo," incorrectly merging "tempo" and "dynamics" without separation in the series. A useful strategy: treat these three rules as a checklist — introductory element, nonessential clause (both commas!), and series. Missing even one transforms a correct sentence into a trap answer.

Question 10

Which sentence uses commas correctly?

  1. The curator cataloged letters from the 1920s, maps of coastal routes, and photographs labeled by date and location. (correct answer)
  2. The curator cataloged, letters from the 1920s, maps of coastal routes, and photographs labeled by date and location.
  3. The curator cataloged letters from the 1920s maps of coastal routes, and photographs labeled by date and location.
  4. The curator cataloged letters from the 1920s, maps of coastal routes, and photographs labeled by date, and location.
Explanation: When a sentence lists three or more items, you need to use a serial comma (also called the Oxford comma) — placing commas after each item in the list except the last. The key is keeping the verb connected cleanly to its objects, and separating only the list items themselves. In this sentence, the curator cataloged three things: (1) letters from the 1920s, (2) maps of coastal routes, and (3) photographs labeled by date and location. Answer A handles this perfectly — a comma follows each item before the next, and no extra commas interrupt the verb or break apart phrases that belong together. Here's where the other choices go wrong. B places a comma directly after "cataloged," severing the verb from its objects entirely. There's no grammatical reason to pause there — it reads as if the sentence is interrupting itself before it even gets started. C omits the comma after "1920s," which blurs the boundary between the first and second list items, making "letters from the 1920s maps of coastal routes" read as one tangled phrase. D introduces a comma between "date" and "location" at the end of the sentence, incorrectly splitting the phrase "by date and location," which is a single prepositional unit describing how the photographs were labeled — not a new list item. A useful strategy: when you spot a list, mentally number the items and check that commas appear between items, not inside them or before the verb. If a comma breaks apart a phrase that belongs together, it's almost certainly wrong.