Grammar: Modifiers and Sentence Construction - SAT Math

In this example, we’re being testing on the application of different types of modifiers. In the existing structure, the relative clause modifier, “which has led to heated debates” must refer back to the noun or noun phrase that comes before the comma. Since the sentence could not logically be referring to “the sun” with this modifier, any construction with “which” is incorrect. The correct answer replaces the relative clause with the participial modifier “leading to,” which can refer back to the subject or subject-containing clause, the desired structure in this case.

When encountering a list, ensure that each item in the list is presented in the same way, maintaining parallel structure. In this case, the list begins with two adjectives describing Kaitlyn. For this reason, “had the focus,” which attributes focus to Kaitlyn by suggesting that she “had” it, is not parallel to the other items. Similarly, “could focus” presents a modal verb describing her ability to focus, instead of a mere adjective. The redundancy of “was,” which appears before the list and in “was focused,” shows that it is not a viable option. The remaining choice, “focused,” is an adjective which is parallel to the other two in the list, and is thus our correct answer.

When contrasting two items, it’s important they remain parallel in their structure. In this case, the comparison is being drawn between one option, “to pry the door open,” given as an infinitive, and a less efficient alternative. One candidate, “keep banging,” is given in the simple present tense, which does not match the infinitive form of the other option. Similarly, “kept banging” is given in the simple past tense, not the infinitive. Another possibility, “keeping to bang,” might at first seem to incorporate an infinitive, but is in reality altogether ungrammatical. However, if the sentence remains unchanged, “to keep banging,” an infinitive, is correctly parallel to “to pry.”

In this example, we’re being tested on the modifier type introduced by the underlined portion of the sentence. In the original construction, and in all answer options that begin with “which,” we introduce a relative clause that must logically refer back to the noun or noun phrase directly before. Since “yesterday” did not force the city council to cancel the parade, we can eliminate any option that utilizes the relative modifier “which.” This leaves us with the correct answer, “forcing.” since participial (-ing) modifiers at the end of a sentence can refer back to the subject or subject-containing clause, in this case, “a severe snowstorm.”

When you are asked the best way to combine two sentences, remember that the way the sentence is given is technically correct, and that you are looking for an option that is both grammatically correct and is concise. Option "creation, the process of" is the only option that is both. Choice "creation, processing" is illogical since it implies that niche creation itself is changing the organism. Choices "creation, which is the process by which" and "creation – the process through which" are redundant and wordy. Since "creation, the process of" is both concise and grammatically correct, it is an effective way to combine the sentences.

Whenever you are writing a list of three or more items, you generally will need to separate each item in the list with a comma. (Note that the SAT doesn't test the Oxford comma, so you don't need to worry about whether you need a comma before the "and" in any list.) The exception to this rule is if you have a complex list, especially one containing commas in the individual items. In that case, you can choose to instead separate each item with a semicolon. No matter which you use, however, the key is that you remain consistent. Since this isn't a complex list, the semicolon isn't allowed - each item in the list would be comprehensible with only a comma. This allows you to eliminate "state; Native American tribes;". And since " state; Native American tribes," and " state, Native American tribes;" mix the use of a semicolon and comma, you can also eliminate both of those since you must have consistency within the list. Only as it is written (NO CHANGE) correctly uses commas to separate each item in the list.

In this example, using the term “depicting,” whether we include the comma in “paintings in the museum, depicting,” or eliminate it as in the original construction, introduces a participial modifier. This modifier correctly refers back to the series of paintings in the museum, but leaves the sentence without a conjugated verb. The construction “paintings in the museum, which depicted​” makes a similar mistake, as the relative clause “which depicted” also leaves the sentence without a verb in verb form. The correct answer, “paintings in the museum depicted​,” corrects this error, as the past tense verb “depicted” creates a complete sentence and agrees with the subject, “a series of paintings.”

In this example, the existing phrasing, “her having,” appears to be an attempt to construct a participial modifier referring back to “his mother,” but the inclusion of the pronouns “her” renders the choice redundant and grammatically incorrect. The choice “she had” creates an independent clause within the commas, which cannot occur grammatically inserted into the middle of a sentence. The choice “which” renders the clause within the commas a relative clause, which might seem correct, but “which” seems to convey the incorrect sense that “his mother” is an inanimate object. The choice “who had,” on the other hand, similarly introduces a relative clause which correctly signifies that “his mother” is a person, and it is accordingly the best choice.

In this example, the existing phrasing, “that flourishes,” makes the remainder of the sentence a relative clause which describes the “vibrant plant life.” However, this choice leaves the sentence without a conjugated verb, making it an ungrammatical fragment. Deleting the underlined portion makes “in unexpected places” a prepositional phrase to describe the “vibrant plant life,” but the sentence is similarly left without a conjugated verb. The choice “flourish” is problematic because of subject-verb disagreement between “vibrant plant life,” which is singular, and “flourish,” which is conjugated to agree with a plural subject. Alternatively, the choice “flourishes” provides the sentence with correctly conjugated subject-verb agreement.

In this example, the choice which includes a comma followed by “and” is incorrect because of the relationship between the two clauses. Because the first clause begins with the subordinating conjunction “because,” it introduces a subordinate clause, which should be set off by a comma when it precedes an independent clause. The inclusion of “and,” however, means that a subordinating conjunction and a coordinating conjunction are used, ungrammatically, in tandem. The choice which includes “then” and no comma is wrong on two counts, as it fails to include a comma to separate the subordinate and independent clause, and the use of “then,” which indicates causation, is redundant with the subordinating conjunction “because,” which has already signaled a causal relationship. The existing phrasing, with no conjunction and no comma, is incorrect because a comma is necessary between an independent clause and a subordinate clause which precedes it. Accordingly, the choice with the comma and no conjunction is these, as there is no redundancy in conjunctions and the comma correctly separates the two clauses.

In this example, the choice which uses a semicolon suggests that both clauses are independent. The first clause, however, cannot stand alone as a complete sentence, as it does not contain a conjugated verb. For a similar reason, the choice which uses a comma and “so” can be discarded. A comma followed by a coordinating conjunction like “so” can only separate independent clauses, and as previously discussed, the first clause is not a full sentence. The choice which uses “because,” a subordinating conjunction, is also incorrect, as it suggests that the second clause is subordinate, but the first clause is not an independent clause, and subordinate clauses cannot appear unless adjacent to independent clauses. The correct choice, then, is the existing phrasing, containing only a comma, as it correctly marks the first clause as a participial clause followed by an independent clause.

In this example, the existing phrasing is ungrammatical, as an appositive clause is followed by a relative clause. In context, “one of the pioneers of bebop style” is an appositive clause which describes who “Charlie Parker” is, and it is followed by “which,” a relative pronoun which marks the remainder of the sentence as a relative clause describing “bebop style.” This choice, however, contains no conjugated verb, making the sentence a fragment. The choice to replace the comma with a semicolon, retaining “which,” is no better, as it suggests the clauses preceding and following the semicolon are independent, which they are not. The choice with no punctuation makes the sentence after “Charlie Parker” appear to stand alone as an independent clause, but this leaves a noun set off by a comma at the beginning of the sentence, for which there is no grammatical justification. The correct choice includes only a comma, as it correctly makes “one of the pioneers of bebop style” into an appositive clause which describes Charlie Parker, while the remainder of the sentence contains a conjugated verb and a description of how he changed jazz “for decades to come.”

In this example, the existing phrasing means that everything which follows “who,” a relative pronoun, should be interpreted as part of the relative clause, as there is no other comma in the sentence to mark the end of the clause. This leaves the sentence erroneously incomplete, as the complementizer “that” suggests that something Americans have “no reason” to do will be introduced after the relative clause. In examining the other choice which doesn’t contain a comma, it appears similarly erroneous, as the relative clause continues through the end of the sentence, never revealing what it is that Americans have “no reason” to do. The choice containing “to have” seems like it might work, as the relative clause is closed with a comma, but in removing the relative clause to examine the remaining sentence, “no reason that Americans to have a hand” remains, and it becomes clear that the complementizer “that” and the infinitive construction “to have” do not function together. The final choice, with “should have,” uses the relative clause correctly, and in removing it, we are left with “no reason that Americans should have a hand,” which is entirely grammatically correct.

In this example, the choice containing “who” and “which” both suggest that the information to follow is part of a relative clause. The comma before “which” suggests that the clause is non-restrictive, while the absence of a comma before “who” suggests that the clause is restrictive. In either case, however, the sentence is left without a conjugated verb, so neither choice is the correct one. The choice “industry has testified” might seem right, as there appears to be a conjugated verb, but there is subject-verb disagreement between “experts,” which is plural, and “has,” which is singular. The existing phrasing, on the other hand, has correct subject-verb agreement, meaning the sentence contains a conjugated verb and is otherwise grammatically correct.

Whenever you are asked to join two thoughts with a comma, you should make sure that the sentence that is created is both not a run-on and a complete sentence. In this case, your hint should be the second comma after "Catalonia" later in the sentence. The portion directly after the first comma is meant to be a piece of additional information bracketed within commas. It therefore shouldn't have a verb, since having a verb would create a run-on sentence. That should allow you to eliminate all choices except for "DELETE the underlined portion."

This sentence presents you with two major decision points: between the comma and semicolon and between "and featuring" and "featuring". Check the difference between the comma and semicolon first. Remember that a comma cannot be used to link two complete sentences without a conjunction and that a semicolon can only be used to link two complete sentences. "ambitious; featuring" can be eliminated since what follows the semicolon is not a complete sentence, and "ambitious, it featured" can be eliminated because there is a complete sentence on either side of the comma without a conjunction. Since the sentence is not a list and what follows after the comma isn't a complete sentence, "and featuring" does not make sense. "ambitious, featuring" turns the second part of the sentence into an appositive, allowing you to use the comma.

In this example, we are presented with several modifiers across our answer options. The relative clause introduced by “which” must refer to the noun or noun phrase that comes before the comma. Since it is illogical to say that the sun has lead to heated debates, we can eliminate all answers that lead with the relative clause “, which.” This leaves us with only our correct answer: “leading to heated debates over which of these objects deserve​.” Since this option replaces the relative clause “, which” with a participial phrase beginning with “leading,” we are now able to modify the subject or subject containing clause. In this case, this construction is necessary to modify the fact that astronomers discovered the objects, the logical meaning of this sentence.

In this example, we need to identify the order of modifying phrases that correctly expresses a logical meaning. Here, each of our modifiers should be as close as possible to what they’re trying to modify. The logical meaning, in this case, expresses that we used to sit “on top of an old well,” that the old well is described as “in a meadow,” and that the meadow is “behind the corner store. Thus, “on top of an old well in the meadow behind the corner store​” is the correct and logical answer. All other answer choices seem to incorrectly (and illogically) modify either the meadow or the corner store as “on top of an old well.”

In this example, we need the introductory, participial modifier “alarmed by the recent decline of the stock market” to logically modify something that has the potential to be “alarmed.” In the original construction, “alarmed by the recent decline of the stock market” seems to modify “many retirement investments.” This is an illogical construction, as investments don’t have the capacity to be alarmed. With this in mind, we can eliminate answers beginning with “many retirement investments” and consider only those that begin “many retirement investors.” From here, we can eliminate the option “many retirement investors have been switched from stocks,” as the investors are not being switched, they are switching stocks. So, we’re left with “many retirement investors have switched their stocks,” the only logical construction out of our options.

In this example, we’re being tested on the use of the participial modifier “published since 1851.” What follows the comma for this introductory modifier should be what the sentence is attempting to describe as “published since 1851.” Since the logical meaning of the sentence should suggest that “the New York Times” was “published since 1851,” not “the founders,” we can eliminate all wrong answers, and we’re left with “the New York Times was founded by,” our correct answer.