TACHS Quiz: Improving Sentence Structure
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Improving Sentence StructureQuestion 1 of 20

After Maya finished her homework she practiced the piano she also fed the dog before dinner.

Which revision best combines the ideas into one clear, correctly structured sentence?

Maya, after finishing her homework, practiced the piano, and she also, before dinner, fed the dog.
After Maya finished her homework she practiced the piano, she also fed the dog before dinner.
Maya finished her homework, then she practiced the piano and feeding the dog before dinner.
After Maya finished her homework, she practiced the piano and also fed the dog before dinner.
← Back to quizzes

TACHS Quiz

TACHS Quiz: Improving Sentence Structure

Practice Improving Sentence Structure in TACHS 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 Improving Sentence Structure, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for TACHS.

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

After Maya finished her homework she practiced the piano she also fed the dog before dinner.

Which revision best combines the ideas into one clear, correctly structured sentence?

  1. Maya, after finishing her homework, practiced the piano, and she also, before dinner, fed the dog.
  2. After Maya finished her homework she practiced the piano, she also fed the dog before dinner.
  3. Maya finished her homework, then she practiced the piano and feeding the dog before dinner.
  4. After Maya finished her homework, she practiced the piano and also fed the dog before dinner. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a sentence that strings together multiple ideas without proper punctuation or conjunctions, you're dealing with a run-on sentence that needs restructuring. The original passage contains three separate actions that need to be combined clearly and grammatically. The key to fixing this is identifying the logical relationships between the ideas and using appropriate punctuation and connecting words. Answer choice D accomplishes this perfectly: "After Maya finished her homework, she practiced the piano and also fed the dog before dinner." This revision uses a dependent clause ("After Maya finished her homework") followed by a comma, then connects the two remaining actions with the coordinating conjunction "and." Let's examine why the other options fail. Choice A creates an awkward, choppy sentence by overusing commas and inserting too many interrupting phrases, making it difficult to follow the sequence of events. Choice B is still a run-on sentence because it incorrectly uses a comma to separate two complete thoughts instead of proper punctuation or conjunctions. Choice C contains a parallelism error by mixing "practiced the piano" (past tense verb) with "feeding the dog" (gerund), creating an inconsistent structure. For TACHS written expression questions, always look for the revision that maintains parallel structure, uses proper punctuation to separate clauses, and creates the smoothest, most natural flow. When combining multiple actions, ensure all verbs are in the same form and that conjunctions clearly show the relationship between ideas.

Question 2

Carlos not only won the chess match, but he also breaking the club record for fastest victory.

Which revision corrects the error in verb tense and parallel structure?

  1. Carlos not only winning the chess match, but he also broke the club record for fastest victory.
  2. Carlos not only had won the chess match, but he also had been breaking the club record for fastest victory.
  3. Carlos not only wins the chess match, but he also breaking the club record for fastest victory.
  4. Carlos not only won the chess match but also broke the club record for fastest victory. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of parallel structure and verb tense consistency. When you see "not only...but also" constructions, you need to ensure that the elements being connected have the same grammatical form. The correct answer is D because it maintains both proper verb tense and parallel structure. Both verbs "won" and "broke" are in simple past tense, and they follow the same pattern: "Carlos not only [past tense verb] but also [past tense verb]." The sentence flows smoothly because both actions are presented as completed events that happened simultaneously. Let's examine why the other options fail. Choice A changes "won" to "winning," creating inconsistent verb forms and disrupting the parallel structure. Choice B uses "had won" (past perfect) with "had been breaking" (past perfect progressive), which is unnecessarily complex and suggests the record-breaking was an ongoing process rather than a single achievement. Choice C mixes "wins" (present tense) with "breaking" (present participle), creating both tense inconsistency and faulty parallelism. When you encounter "not only...but also" on the TACHS, remember this key strategy: whatever grammatical form follows "not only" must match what follows "but also." If you see a past tense verb after "not only," look for another past tense verb after "but also." This parallel structure rule applies to all correlative conjunctions, so practice identifying when elements need to match grammatically.

Question 3

To make a sturdy birdhouse, sand the edges of the wood, driving nails carefully, and you should paint it with weatherproof stain.

Which revision creates a smoother sequence of parallel instructions?

  1. To make a sturdy birdhouse, the edges must be sanded, nails careful when driving them, and paint it with weatherproof stain.
  2. To make a sturdy birdhouse, you sand the edges of the wood, driving nails carefully, and it should be painted with weatherproof stain.
  3. To make a sturdy birdhouse, sanding the edges of the wood, driving nails carefully, and painting it with weatherproof stain are needed.
  4. To make a sturdy birdhouse, sand the edges of the wood, drive nails carefully, and paint it with weatherproof stain. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests parallel structure in a series of instructions. When you give a sequence of directions, each step should follow the same grammatical pattern to create smooth, clear writing. The original passage mixes different verb forms: "sand" (imperative), "driving" (gerund), and "you should paint" (subject + modal verb). This creates an awkward, inconsistent rhythm that confuses readers. Answer D correctly fixes this by using three parallel imperative verbs: "sand," "drive," and "paint." Each instruction follows the same pattern—a simple command verb followed by its object. This creates a clean, professional tone perfect for instructional writing. Answer A fails because it switches between passive voice ("edges must be sanded"), an incomplete phrase ("nails careful when driving them"), and active voice ("paint it"). The middle phrase is also grammatically broken. Answer B keeps the original problem by mixing "you sand" (subject + verb), "driving" (gerund), and "it should be painted" (passive voice). The inconsistent structure remains choppy. Answer C converts everything to gerunds ("sanding," "driving," "painting") but creates an awkward construction where these actions "are needed." While technically parallel, this phrasing is wordy and less direct than simple commands. When writing instructions, stick to one consistent pattern throughout your series. Imperative verbs (commands like "mix," "stir," "bake") are usually the clearest choice for step-by-step directions because they're direct and action-oriented.

Question 4

The storm damaged roofs, flooded basements, and there were hundreds of trees that fell across roads.

Which option best revises the sentence for parallelism and concision?

  1. Roofs were damaged by the storm, it also flooded basements, and hundreds of trees fell across roads.
  2. The storm damaged roofs and basements, and there were hundreds of trees that fell across roads.
  3. Damaging roofs, basements got flooded, and hundreds of trees were across roads because of the storm.
  4. The storm damaged roofs, flooded basements, and felled hundreds of trees across roads. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your ability to identify and correct faulty parallelism while also improving sentence concision. Parallel structure means using the same grammatical form for items in a series—when you list actions, they should all follow the same pattern. The original sentence breaks parallelism in its third element. While "damaged roofs" and "flooded basements" are both simple past tense verbs followed by direct objects, the third part switches to "there were hundreds of trees that fell," which uses a completely different construction with unnecessary words. Option D fixes both problems perfectly. It maintains parallel structure with three consistent verb-object pairs: "damaged roofs," "flooded basements," and "felled hundreds of trees." All three use the same grammatical pattern, and the sentence flows smoothly while remaining concise. Option A creates a comma splice error and shifts to passive voice ("Roofs were damaged"), breaking parallelism entirely. Option B only partially fixes the problem—while it corrects the first two items, it keeps the wordy, non-parallel construction "there were hundreds of trees that fell" for the third element. Option C scrambles the sentence structure completely, mixing a participle ("Damaging roofs"), passive voice ("basements got flooded"), and an awkward prepositional phrase, creating confusion rather than clarity. When you encounter parallelism questions, look for series or lists and check that each element follows the same grammatical pattern. Also watch for opportunities to eliminate wordy constructions like "there were" phrases, which often signal concision problems.

Question 5

Not realizing the gate was locked, the dog's escape attempt failed.

Which revision corrects the misplaced modifier?

  1. The dog's escape attempt failed because it did not realize the gate was locked.
  2. Not realizing the gate was locked, the dog's escape attempt was failed.
  3. Not realizing the gate was locked, the dog failed in its escape attempt. (correct answer)
  4. The dog's escape attempt, not realizing the gate was locked, failed.
Explanation: When you encounter a sentence that begins with a descriptive phrase like "Not realizing the gate was locked," you need to check what comes immediately after the comma. This opening phrase is a modifier, and it must logically describe whoever or whatever appears next in the sentence. The original sentence has a misplaced modifier because "Not realizing the gate was locked" appears to modify "the dog's escape attempt." But an escape attempt cannot realize anything—only the dog can. The modifier needs to be placed so it clearly refers to the dog as the one doing the realizing. Choice C correctly fixes this error by restructuring the sentence so "the dog" immediately follows the comma. Now the modifier properly describes the dog as the one not realizing the gate was locked, while the dog is also the one who failed in its escape attempt. Choice A changes the meaning entirely by using a "because" clause, which removes the modifier structure altogether rather than fixing it. Choice B keeps the same error as the original—"the dog's escape attempt" still incorrectly appears to be what's not realizing the gate was locked, plus it adds the awkward passive construction "was failed." Choice D places the modifier in the middle of the sentence where it still doesn't clearly connect to the dog, creating confusion about what "not realizing" refers to. Remember: when a sentence starts with a descriptive phrase followed by a comma, whatever comes right after that comma must be what the phrase is describing.

Question 6

The hikers packed water bottles in their bags that were reusable.

Which revision removes ambiguity and improves sentence structure?

  1. In their bags, the hikers packed water bottles, reusable ones.
  2. The hikers packed water bottles that were reusable in their bags.
  3. The hikers packed reusable water bottles in their bags. (correct answer)
  4. Reusable bags were packed by the hikers with water bottles.
Explanation: When you encounter sentences with misplaced modifiers, you need to identify what's causing confusion and rearrange the elements for clarity. The original sentence "The hikers packed water bottles in their bags that were reusable" creates ambiguity because the phrase "that were reusable" could modify either "water bottles" or "bags." The best revision is choice C: "The hikers packed reusable water bottles in their bags." This version eliminates ambiguity by placing the adjective "reusable" directly before "water bottles," making it crystal clear what is reusable. The sentence follows a logical subject-verb-object structure that's easy to follow. Choice A ("In their bags, the hikers packed water bottles, reusable ones") is wordy and awkward. The phrase "reusable ones" creates unnecessary repetition and doesn't flow naturally. Choice B ("The hikers packed water bottles that were reusable in their bags") actually makes the ambiguity worse by placing "in their bags" at the end, where it could modify either the packing action or describe where the bottles are reusable. Choice D ("Reusable bags were packed by the hikers with water bottles") completely changes the meaning, suggesting the bags themselves are reusable rather than the water bottles. It also uses passive voice unnecessarily, making the sentence less direct. When revising sentences with modifier problems, look for the clearest, most direct way to express the relationship between words. Place descriptive words as close as possible to what they're describing, and prefer active voice when it sounds more natural.

Question 7

My sister reads novels quickly she remembers every plot detail.

Which option corrects the run-on while maintaining flow?

  1. My sister reads novels quickly but remembers every plot detail at all.
  2. My sister reads novels quickly; remembering every plot detail.
  3. Reading novels quickly my sister, she remembers every plot detail.
  4. My sister reads novels quickly, and she remembers every plot detail. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a run-on sentence question, you need to identify how two independent clauses are incorrectly joined and find the best way to connect them while preserving meaning and flow. The original sentence contains two complete thoughts: "My sister reads novels quickly" and "she remembers every plot detail." These are simply placed next to each other without proper punctuation or conjunctions, creating a run-on sentence. Option D correctly fixes this by adding a comma and the coordinating conjunction "and." This creates a compound sentence that shows both actions are true about the sister—she reads quickly AND she remembers details. The comma-plus-coordinating-conjunction structure is the standard way to join two related independent clauses. Option A changes the meaning entirely by adding "but" and "at all," suggesting contrast where none exists in the original. The phrase "at all" also creates awkward phrasing that doesn't match the original intent. Option B uses a semicolon incorrectly. While semicolons can join independent clauses, "remembering every plot detail" is not a complete sentence—it's a dependent phrase that cannot stand alone. Option C creates a different structural error by using "Reading novels quickly my sister" as an introductory phrase, then adding "she remembers," which results in unclear pronoun reference and awkward construction. Remember: coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, so, yet, for, nor) with commas are your most reliable tools for fixing run-on sentences while maintaining natural flow and preserving the original meaning.

Question 8

The statue was impressive in size, in design it showed creativity, and historically significant.

Which revision best eliminates faulty parallelism?

  1. Impressive in size, design creativity, and historically significant was the statue.
  2. The statue was impressive in size, its design showed creativity, and it was historically significant.
  3. The statue was impressive in size, creative in design, and significant in history. (correct answer)
  4. The statue was impressive in size and showed creativity in design, also historically significant.
Explanation: Parallel structure requires that items in a series follow the same grammatical pattern. When you see a sentence with multiple elements connected by "and," each element should have the same form—all adjectives, all nouns, or all verb phrases. The original sentence contains faulty parallelism: "impressive in size" (adjective + prepositional phrase), "in design it showed creativity" (awkward prepositional phrase with embedded clause), and "historically significant" (adverb + adjective). These three elements don't match grammatically. Choice C corrects this by making all three elements follow the identical pattern: "impressive in size," "creative in design," and "significant in history." Each element uses an adjective followed by a prepositional phrase, creating perfect parallel structure. Choice A simply rearranges the faulty elements without fixing the parallelism problem. "Design creativity" is now a noun phrase while the other elements remain adjective phrases, and the sentence structure becomes awkward. Choice B breaks the series into separate clauses ("its design showed creativity" and "it was historically significant"), which technically avoids parallelism issues but creates a wordy, choppy sentence that's less elegant than the parallel version. Choice D mixes structures by combining two elements ("impressive in size and showed creativity in design") then awkwardly tacking on "also historically significant," which doesn't parallel the verb phrase that precedes it. When editing for parallelism, identify the series first, then ensure each element uses the exact same grammatical structure. This creates clarity and rhythm in your writing.

Question 9

While the play was entertaining, the costumes colorful, and the music lively.

Which revision eliminates the fragment and creates a complete sentence?

  1. The play entertaining, the costumes colorful, while the music lively.
  2. While the play was entertaining, the costumes colorful, the music lively.
  3. Entertaining the play, colorful costumes, and lively music.
  4. The play was entertaining, the costumes were colorful, and the music was lively. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about sentence fragments, you need to identify what makes a complete sentence: a subject and a predicate (verb) that express a complete thought. The original passage is a fragment because it begins with "While," which creates a dependent clause that cannot stand alone. The correct answer is D because it transforms the fragment into a complete sentence with proper parallel structure. Each part has both a subject and a verb: "The play was entertaining," "the costumes were colorful," and "the music was lively." These three independent clauses are properly connected with commas and the coordinating conjunction "and." Choice A rearranges the fragments but still lacks complete predicates for "costumes" and "music," and the word order is awkward. Choice B removes one "while" but still begins with a dependent clause and lacks verbs for the second and third parts, making it incomplete. Choice C creates a series of phrases without any main verb, so while it eliminates "while," it doesn't create a complete sentence—just a list of descriptive phrases. The key strategy for fragment questions is to ensure every clause has both a subject and a predicate that work together to express a complete thought. Watch for subordinating words like "while," "because," "although," and "since" that create dependent clauses requiring an independent clause to complete the sentence. When you see parallel elements in a sentence, make sure they follow the same grammatical pattern.

Question 10

The museum housed artifacts that were ancient, rare, and that were arranged carefully in glass cases.

Which revision of the sentence best improves its parallel structure while preserving the original meaning?

  1. The museum housed artifacts that were ancient and rare, and they were arranged carefully in glass cases.
  2. Housing ancient and rare artifacts, the museum arranged them carefully in glass cases.
  3. Ancient, rare artifacts were in the museum, and all of them were arranged carefully in glass cases.
  4. The museum housed artifacts that were ancient, rare, and carefully arranged in glass cases. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a question about parallel structure, you're being tested on whether items in a series follow the same grammatical pattern. Look for lists connected by "and" or "or" where each element should have matching forms. The original sentence contains a parallelism error in the phrase "ancient, rare, and that were arranged carefully." The first two items are simple adjectives (ancient, rare), but the third item is a complete clause (that were arranged carefully). This creates an unbalanced, awkward construction. Answer D corrects this by converting all three descriptors into parallel adjectives: "ancient, rare, and carefully arranged." Now each item in the series has the same grammatical structure - they're all adjectives modifying "artifacts." This creates smooth, balanced prose while preserving the original meaning. Answer A fails because it breaks the sentence into two independent clauses connected by "and," which changes the emphasis and creates wordiness with the pronoun "they." Answer B restructures the sentence entirely using a participial phrase, which alters the focus from the museum housing artifacts to the museum arranging them. Answer C also splits the information into two separate statements and uses unnecessary words like "all of them," making the sentence wordy and changing the flow of ideas. Remember this pattern: when you see items in a series, check that they all follow the same grammatical form - all nouns, all adjectives, all phrases, etc. This creates cleaner, more professional writing that's easier to read and understand.

Question 11

Because the trail was muddy. We decided to postpone the hike.

Which revision corrects the fragment without changing meaning?

  1. Because, we decided to postpone the hike, the trail was muddy.
  2. The trail was muddy, decided to postpone the hike because of that.
  3. We decided to postpone the hike. Because the trail was muddy.
  4. Because the trail was muddy, we decided to postpone the hike. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter a sentence fragment on the TACHS, you're being tested on your ability to recognize incomplete thoughts and fix them while preserving the original meaning. The passage contains a dependent clause fragment: "Because the trail was muddy." This clause begins with the subordinating conjunction "because," which signals that additional information is needed to complete the thought. A dependent clause cannot stand alone as a sentence—it must be connected to an independent clause. Choice D correctly fixes this by combining the dependent clause with the independent clause using proper punctuation: "Because the trail was muddy, we decided to postpone the hike." This creates a complete sentence with a clear cause-and-effect relationship, and the comma after the introductory dependent clause follows standard punctuation rules. Choice A incorrectly places the comma, creating "Because, we decided to postpone the hike, the trail was muddy." This awkward construction separates "because" from its clause and scrambles the logical flow. Choice B produces a run-on sentence with unclear structure: "The trail was muddy, decided to postpone the hike because of that" lacks a subject for "decided" and uses informal language. Choice C simply moves the fragment to the end, creating two sentences where the second remains an incomplete dependent clause. Remember this pattern: when you see a dependent clause standing alone (often starting with words like "because," "since," "although," or "when"), look for the answer choice that properly connects it to an independent clause with correct punctuation. The meaning should flow logically from cause to effect.

Question 12

Jenna enjoys painting landscapes; while her brother, portraits are what interest him most.

Which revision best corrects the faulty sentence structure?

  1. Jenna, enjoying painting landscapes; her brother, portraits are what interests him most.
  2. Jenna enjoys painting landscapes, and portraits being what interests her brother most.
  3. Jenna enjoys painting landscapes while her brother, portraits are what interest him most.
  4. Jenna enjoys painting landscapes, while her brother is most interested in portraits. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about faulty sentence structure, you're typically dealing with problems in coordination, subordination, or parallel structure. This sentence attempts to compare what Jenna and her brother enjoy painting, but it creates confusion through improper punctuation and awkward phrasing. The correct answer is D because it creates a clear, properly structured compound sentence. "Jenna enjoys painting landscapes" is one complete independent clause, followed by a comma and the coordinating word "while," then "her brother is most interested in portraits" forms the second independent clause. This structure cleanly contrasts the siblings' different artistic preferences with parallel phrasing and proper punctuation. Let's examine why the other options fail. Choice A uses a semicolon incorrectly—semicolons should connect two independent clauses, but "her brother, portraits are what interests him most" is awkwardly constructed and unclear. Choice B creates a sentence fragment with "portraits being what interests her brother most," which lacks a proper verb structure to complete the thought. Choice C removes the comma after "landscapes" but keeps the same awkward construction in the second part: "her brother, portraits are what interest him most" remains confusing and grammatically incorrect. Watch for questions that test your ability to recognize proper coordination between clauses. When you see semicolons, commas, and connecting words like "while," check that each clause can stand alone as a complete sentence and that the punctuation appropriately connects the ideas. Clear, parallel structure usually signals the correct answer.

Question 13

Neither the teachers nor the principal were available for comment.

Which revision corrects the subject-verb agreement without altering structure unnecessarily?

  1. For comment, neither the teachers nor the principal were available.
  2. Neither the teachers nor the principal had been available for comment.
  3. Neither the teachers nor the principal are available for comment.
  4. Neither the teachers nor the principal was available for comment. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter "neither...nor" constructions, the key to proper subject-verb agreement is understanding that the verb must agree with the subject closest to it. This rule applies to all correlative conjunctions that join subjects. In this sentence, "neither the teachers nor the principal" creates a compound subject where "principal" (singular) is closest to the verb. Since "principal" is singular, the verb must be singular as well. The original sentence incorrectly uses "were" (plural), so it needs to be changed to "was" (singular). Choice D makes this correction: "Neither the teachers nor the principal was available for comment." Choice A simply rearranges the word order but keeps the incorrect plural verb "were," so the agreement error remains. Choice B changes the verb to "had been," which is still plural and doesn't fix the fundamental agreement problem. Choice C switches to "are," which is present tense rather than past tense like the original, unnecessarily changing the timeframe while also maintaining incorrect plural agreement. The proximity rule works the same way if the subjects were reversed: "Neither the principal nor the teachers were available" would be correct because "teachers" (plural) is now closest to the verb. Remember this strategy: In "neither...nor" and "either...or" constructions, always make the verb agree with whichever subject comes second. This rule will help you quickly identify correct subject-verb agreement in compound subjects joined by correlative conjunctions.

Question 14

Julia wrote the essay, edited the rough draft, and the final version was submitted on time.

Which choice presents the ideas in a single, parallel sentence?

  1. Julia wrote the essay and edited the rough draft, while the final version was submitted on time.
  2. Writing the essay, Julia editing the rough draft, and submitted the final version on time.
  3. Julia wrote the essay, edited the rough draft, and submitted the final version on time. (correct answer)
  4. Julia, writing the essay, editing the rough draft, and the final version was submitted on time.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of parallel structure, which means using the same grammatical form for items in a series. When you see sentences with multiple actions or ideas connected by "and," check that each element follows the same pattern. The original sentence has a parallelism error: "Julia wrote the essay, edited the rough draft, and the final version was submitted on time." The first two items use active voice with Julia as the subject (wrote, edited), but the third switches to passive voice (was submitted), breaking the parallel structure. Choice C correctly maintains parallel structure by keeping Julia as the subject for all three actions: "wrote," "edited," and "submitted." Each verb follows the same pattern—simple past tense in active voice—creating a smooth, balanced sentence. Choice A fails because it changes the relationship between ideas, using "while" to make the submission seem simultaneous rather than sequential, and still uses passive voice for the final action. Choice B creates a grammatical mess by mixing different verb forms: "Writing" (gerund), "editing" (present participle without proper structure), and "submitted" (past tense), making the sentence incomplete and confusing. Choice D attempts to use parallel gerunds ("writing," "editing") but then shifts back to passive voice for the final element, breaking the pattern and creating an awkward construction. Remember this key strategy: when you see items in a series connected by "and," ensure each item uses the exact same grammatical structure. Read each element aloud separately to check if they follow the same pattern.

Question 15

After reviewing the evidence, the conclusion reached by the jury was swift and decisive.

Which revision improves the sentence by reducing passive construction?

  1. The jury, after reviewing the evidence, a swift and decisive conclusion was reached.
  2. After reviewing the evidence, the conclusion that was reached by the jury was swift and decisive.
  3. After reviewing the evidence, the swift and decisive conclusion was reached by the jury.
  4. After reviewing the evidence, the jury reached a swift and decisive conclusion. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your ability to identify and eliminate passive voice constructions, which can make writing wordy and unclear. Passive voice occurs when the subject receives the action rather than performing it, often using forms of "to be" plus a past participle. The original sentence uses passive construction: "the conclusion reached by the jury was swift and decisive." Here, "conclusion" is the subject, but it's not doing anything—the jury is the actual actor. To improve clarity and directness, you want the real performer of the action (the jury) to be the subject. Choice D successfully converts this to active voice: "After reviewing the evidence, the jury reached a swift and decisive conclusion." Now "jury" is the subject actively performing the verb "reached." This creates a clearer, more direct sentence where the actor comes before the action. Choice A creates a sentence fragment with "a swift and decisive conclusion was reached"—this lacks a proper main verb connecting to "The jury." Choice B actually worsens the passive construction by adding "that was reached," making it even wordier than the original. Choice C maintains the same passive structure as the original sentence with "conclusion was reached by the jury," so it doesn't address the problem at all. When you see questions about reducing passive voice, look for the version that puts the true actor (the one performing the action) as the subject of the sentence. Active voice typically follows the pattern: subject + verb + object, making your writing more direct and engaging.

Question 16

The committee discussed the budget, scheduling, and how the publicity should be handled.

Which revision improves the sentence's parallelism?

  1. The committee discussed the budget and scheduling, and how the publicity should be handled.
  2. The committee discussed the budget, scheduling issues, and handling publicity.
  3. The committee discussed budgeting, the schedule, and how publicity should be handled.
  4. The committee discussed the budget, the schedule, and the publicity plan. (correct answer)
Explanation: Parallel structure requires that items in a series follow the same grammatical pattern. When you see a list connected by commas and "and," check that each element uses the same type of word or phrase structure. In the original sentence, "The committee discussed the budget, scheduling, and how the publicity should be handled," the three items don't match grammatically. "Budget" is a noun, "scheduling" is a gerund (verb form acting as a noun), and "how the publicity should be handled" is a noun clause. This creates an awkward, unbalanced sentence. Choice D corrects this by making all three items simple noun phrases: "the budget, the schedule, and the publicity plan." Each element follows the same pattern (article + noun), creating smooth, balanced parallelism. Choice A fails because it still mixes "budget and scheduling" (nouns/gerunds) with "how the publicity should be handled" (noun clause). The sentence structure remains uneven despite the slight rewording. Choice B attempts to fix the problem but creates inconsistency by using "budget" (noun), "scheduling issues" (gerund + noun), and "handling publicity" (gerund + noun). While the last two items match, the first doesn't fit the pattern. Choice C uses "budgeting" (gerund), "the schedule" (article + noun), and "how publicity should be handled" (noun clause). This creates three different grammatical structures, making it even less parallel than the original. Remember: when editing for parallelism, identify the grammatical pattern of each item in the series and revise so they all follow the same structure.

Question 17

The coach promised that the drills would be short, effective, and they would increase our speed.

Which revision improves the parallelism in the sentence?

  1. The coach promised that the drills would be short, effective, and speed-increasing.
  2. The coach promised that the drills would be short, effective, and would increase our speed.
  3. The coach promised that the drills would be short and effective and would increase our speed.
  4. The coach promised short, effective drills that would increase our speed. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about parallelism, you're being tested on whether sentence elements that serve the same function are written in the same grammatical form. In lists or series, all items should follow consistent structure. The original sentence has a parallelism problem in the series "short, effective, and they would increase our speed." The first two items are adjectives (short, effective), but the third item is a complete clause (they would increase our speed). This creates an awkward, unbalanced structure. Answer D fixes this by restructuring the entire sentence: "The coach promised short, effective drills that would increase our speed." This eliminates the problematic series altogether, creating a cleaner sentence with "short" and "effective" as parallel adjectives modifying "drills," followed by a descriptive clause. Answer A attempts to make all three items adjectives with "speed-increasing," but this creates an awkward compound adjective that sounds unnatural. Answer B keeps the same flawed structure as the original, just removing "that" before "the drills," which doesn't address the parallelism issue. Answer C tries to separate the elements with "and" but still mixes adjectives with a clause, failing to achieve true parallelism. When you spot parallelism errors, look for the cleanest solution. Sometimes the best fix isn't forcing problematic elements into parallel form, but restructuring the sentence entirely to avoid the issue. This often produces more elegant, readable prose than cramming mismatched elements into an artificial parallel structure.

Question 18

Walking down the street, the bakery's fresh bread smelled delicious.

Which revision eliminates the dangling modifier?

  1. The bakery smelled delicious bread while I was walking down the street.
  2. The bakery's fresh bread smelled delicious walking down the street.
  3. Walking down the street, delicious bread from the bakery smelled fresh.
  4. Walking down the street, I smelled the bakery's fresh bread, which was delicious. (correct answer)
Explanation: A dangling modifier is a phrase that doesn't clearly connect to the word it's meant to describe, often creating confusing or illogical sentences. When you see a sentence starting with a descriptive phrase like "Walking down the street," immediately ask yourself: who or what is doing the walking? In the original sentence, "Walking down the street" appears to modify "the bakery's fresh bread," which creates the absurd image of bread walking down a street. The bread can't walk—a person must be doing the walking. Choice D correctly fixes this by placing "I" immediately after the introductory phrase, making it clear that a person is walking and smelling the bread. The sentence now logically connects the modifier to the right subject. Choice A rearranges the sentence but creates awkward phrasing with "The bakery smelled delicious bread," suggesting the bakery itself is doing the smelling. Choice B keeps the same error as the original—the bread still appears to be walking down the street. Choice C simply moves "delicious" but maintains the illogical connection between "walking down the street" and "bread." When you encounter introductory phrases (especially those starting with -ing words), always check that the subject immediately following the comma can logically perform the action described in the phrase. If not, you've spotted a dangling modifier that needs revision. The subject doing the action in the introductory phrase must be clearly stated as the main subject of the sentence.

Question 19

We arrived early to the concert, finding our seats, and the program was read by us.

Which revision best corrects the shift in voice and improves structure?

  1. We arrived early, seats being found by us and the program read.
  2. Arriving early to the concert, we found our seats, and the program was read by us.
  3. We arrived early to the concert; finding our seats, and reading the program.
  4. We arrived early to the concert, found our seats, and read the program. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your ability to recognize and correct shifts in voice while maintaining parallel structure. Voice refers to whether a sentence uses active voice (subject performs the action) or passive voice (subject receives the action). The original sentence contains an awkward shift from active to passive voice: "We arrived" and "finding our seats" are active, but "the program was read by us" is passive. Additionally, the structure isn't parallel because the verbs don't match in form. Answer D corrects both problems perfectly. It maintains active voice throughout ("We arrived," "found," and "read") and creates parallel structure with three past-tense verbs in a series. This creates a clear, direct sentence where the subject "we" consistently performs all three actions. Answer A makes the problem worse by forcing awkward passive constructions ("seats being found by us") that sound unnatural and wordy. Answer B still contains the passive voice problem with "the program was read by us," and the opening participial phrase "Arriving early" creates unnecessary complexity. Answer C attempts parallel structure with "finding" and "reading" but uses incorrect punctuation—the semicolon creates a sentence fragment with the second part. When you encounter voice and structure questions, look for consistency in who's doing what. Active voice is usually clearer and more direct than passive voice. Also check that items in a series follow the same grammatical pattern—this is called parallel structure. The strongest revision will eliminate unnecessary voice shifts and create clean, parallel phrasing.

Question 20

Which sentence avoids a comma splice while keeping the ideas in a single sentence?

  1. The science fair ended at noon, therefore we had plenty of time to clean up our display.
  2. The science fair ended at noon, we had plenty of time to clean up our display.
  3. The science fair ended at noon, having plenty of time to clean up our display.
  4. The science fair ended at noon, so we had plenty of time to clean up our display. (correct answer)
Explanation: A comma splice occurs when you incorrectly join two complete sentences (independent clauses) with only a comma. Each part must be able to stand alone as a complete sentence for this error to occur. Answer choice D correctly fixes the comma splice by using "so" as a coordinating conjunction. The formula is: independent clause + comma + coordinating conjunction + independent clause. The coordinating conjunctions are FANBOYS (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so). Since "so" shows a cause-and-effect relationship between the fair ending and having time to clean up, it creates a grammatically correct compound sentence. Choice A creates a comma splice because "therefore" is a conjunctive adverb, not a coordinating conjunction. While "therefore" shows logical connection, it cannot join independent clauses with just a comma. You'd need a semicolon: "The science fair ended at noon; therefore, we had plenty of time..." Choice B is a classic comma splice - two complete sentences incorrectly joined by only a comma. "The science fair ended at noon" and "we had plenty of time to clean up our display" are both independent clauses that cannot be connected this way. Choice C avoids the comma splice but changes the meaning and creates awkward phrasing. "Having plenty of time to clean up our display" becomes a participial phrase that doesn't clearly connect to the main clause, making the sentence unclear about who had the time. Remember: when you see two complete thoughts joined by a comma, check if there's a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS) after the comma. Without one, you likely have a comma splice.