This question tests the use of a colon to introduce a list following a complete sentence or independent clause. The sentence before the blank, 'the instructor asked participants to submit three items,' is an independent clause that sets up the list of items, which are 'a short reflection, a revised outline, and a list of questions for peer review,' making a colon necessary to introduce that list. The list directly follows 'items,' acting as an appositive that specifies what they are, and both the setup and the list are grammatically complete. Choice A incorrectly uses a comma, which is insufficient for introducing a list after an independent clause and creates a splice-like error, choice B uses a semicolon, which connects independent clauses but not lists, and choices D uses a period, breaking the sentence unnecessarily. When a sentence ends with a word like 'items' followed by specifics, recognize this as a list introduction and opt for a colon if the preceding part is independent.

This question tests the semicolon to connect two related independent clauses without a conjunction. Both 'The turnout was strong' and 'the council raised enough money to replace the aging sound system before the spring concert' are independent clauses, each with a subject and verb, and they share a cause-effect relationship, making a semicolon suitable. The second clause elaborates on the result of the strong turnout. Choice A creates a comma splice; choice C adds 'and' without a comma, improperly forming a compound; choice D uses a colon, better for introductions. To avoid comma splices in related ideas, test if a semicolon can link the clauses smoothly.

This question tests the colon to introduce an appositive or example specifying a term from the previous clause. The clause before the blank, 'She found that one species stood out every year,' is independent and sets up 'lavender' as the specific species, with 'because its flowers lasted for weeks and drew bees throughout the day' explaining why, making a colon appropriate for introduction. The colon signals that 'lavender' exemplifies the 'one species.' Choice A uses a comma, creating a splice-like error; choice B uses a semicolon for connections; choice D omits punctuation, resulting in a run-on. When a general term like 'species' is followed by a specific example, consider a colon for clear introduction.

This question tests the comma before a nonrestrictive adverbial clause adding descriptive details. The clause 'when the riverwalk is lined with blooming trees and outdoor concerts begin downtown' provides explanatory reasons why spring is ideal, nonessential to the main recommendation, so a comma separates it. The main clause 'She recommended visiting in the spring' is complete, and the 'when' adds timing context without restricting meaning. Choice B omits the comma, potentially making it restrictive; choices C and D use semicolon and colon, not fitting for adverbial clauses. When 'when' clauses describe rather than define, use a comma to indicate the added information.

This question tests no comma before a restrictive relative clause essential for identifying the referent. The clause 'that recorded their workouts immediately after training, before details were forgotten' restricts 'ones,' specifying which athletes improved most, making it essential and without a comma. The sentence relies on the clause to define the group, unlike nonessential additions. Choice A incorrectly adds a comma, suggesting nonessential info, though 'that' typically signals restrictive; choices C and D use semicolon and colon, inappropriate for relative clauses. For 'that' clauses, remember they are usually restrictive and unpunctuated, unlike 'which' for nonrestrictive.

This question tests the absence of a comma before a restrictive relative clause that is essential to the sentence's meaning. The clause 'who explained the trade-offs between cost and reliability' is restrictive, specifying which engineer made the strongest section, so no comma is needed to set it off. The main sentence would lose precision without the clause, confirming its essential nature. Choice A adds a comma, treating it as nonrestrictive and implying the details are extra; choices C and D use semicolon and colon, unsuitable for relative clauses. When seeing 'who' clauses, determine if they define the noun (no comma, restrictive) or add nonessential info (comma, nonrestrictive).

This question tests the colon to introduce a list or directive following a complete independent clause. The clause before the blank, 'she offered a simple fix for cooks who oversalt it,' is independent and sets up the imperative 'add a squeeze of lemon and a spoonful of water, then taste again before serving' as the fix, making a colon ideal for introduction. The following part lists actions that define the 'fix.' Choice A uses a comma, insufficient for introducing imperatives after an independent clause; choice B uses a semicolon for connections, not introductions; choice D omits punctuation, creating a run-on. When a sentence introduces advice or steps with verbs like 'add,' check for a colon to signal the upcoming list or explanation.

This question tests the semicolon to join two independent clauses that are closely related. Both sides of the blank—'It struggled on the carpet' and 'the wheels were too narrow to grip the fibers, so the students replaced them with wider ones'—are independent, with the second explaining the struggle using 'so' internally, making a semicolon appropriate for connection. The clauses share a cause-effect relationship, but without a conjunction between them, a semicolon links them smoothly. Choice A uses a comma, creating a splice; choice C uses a period, separating them fully; choice D adds 'and,' needing a comma for a compound sentence. To test for semicolons, verify if both parts are complete sentences; if yes and related, a semicolon can replace a period for tighter flow.

This question tests the apostrophe for plural possessive forms. 'Interns' is plural, as the sentence mentions 'two interns,' and they collectively possess the 'summary,' requiring the apostrophe after the 's' as 'interns’.' The context emphasizes shared work on the report, supporting plural possession. Choice A omits the apostrophe, treating it as plural non-possessive; choice C uses singular 'intern’s,' but only one had access, yet the summary is attributed to both; choice D adds extra 's’s,' which is incorrect for regular plurals. Spot possessive tests by noting splits like 's vs. 's vs. s'—confirm if the owner is singular or plural and place the apostrophe accordingly.

This question tests apostrophe placement for plural possessive nouns. The noun 'volunteers' is plural (referring to multiple people), and it possesses 'efforts,' so the apostrophe goes after the 's' to form 'volunteers’.' The sentence discusses the group's collective efforts, confirming plural possession. Choice A lacks an apostrophe, making it plural but not possessive; choice C uses singular possessive 'volunteer’s,' which mismatches the plural context; and choice D incorrectly adds 's’s,' which is not standard for plurals ending in s. When choices split between 's, s', and no apostrophe after words ending in s, determine if it's plural possessive (apostrophe after s) or singular (before s), and check the context for number.