Sentence Improvement Questions and Answers

Answer: B

It should read to my watching.

Object to takes a gerund, and the person doing the gerund's action is shown by a possessive - my watching, not me watching. The same rule gives I appreciate your coming.

Answer: A

Correct answer: it if you could send

Appreciate is a transitive verb and needs an object. An if clause cannot serve as one, so the anticipatory it must be supplied: I would appreciate it if you could send the report. The it stands in for the situation described by the clause that follows, exactly as it does in I would like it if you came early and I hate it when people interrupt. The alternative construction avoids the difficulty by giving appreciate a straightforward noun or gerund object: I would appreciate your sending the report by Friday. Note that the possessive your is preferred there before a gerund, not you. That cannot introduce a conditional clause, and when would change the meaning from a request to a statement about timing. The omission is very common in business correspondence but remains an error.

Answer: D

Correct answer: returned

Return already means to come or go back, so adding back repeats the idea. The correct form is simply he returned from Delhi. This is pleonasm - using more words than the sense requires - and English has a familiar set of such redundancies that examiners draw on: revert back, repeat again, reply back, join together, ascend up, descend down, connect together, final conclusion, free gift, new innovation, past history and advance planning. Most arise because a Latin prefix already carries the sense the English particle repeats: re- means back, ad- means to, de- means down. Note that come back, go back and give back are perfectly correct, since those verbs carry no such prefix. The objection is to the doubling, not to the word back itself.

Answer: D

Correct answer: me

After let, the pronoun is the object of the verb and must be in the objective case: let you and me. The error is an over-correction. Speakers are taught that you and I is right in you and I went - where the pair is the subject - and then apply it everywhere, producing let you and I and between you and I, both wrong. The reliable test is to remove the other person: nobody would say let I resolve this matter, which settles it at once. The same test disposes of between you and me and he invited my brother and me. Myself is reflexive and correct only when the subject and object are the same person, as in I hurt myself; it is not a polite substitute for me. Us would work in let us resolve but not alongside you and, which already names the parties.

Answer: A

Correct answer: are

In a sentence beginning with there, that word is only an introductory placeholder; the real subject follows the verb. Here it is several reasons, plural, so the verb is are. Rearranging makes it plain: several reasons are there for the rejection. The construction catches candidates out because the verb comes before the subject, reversing the usual order and defeating the ear. The same rule governs there is a book on the table against there are books on the table. Where a list follows, standard usage takes the number of the first item: there is a pen and two books on the desk. A related point often tested alongside it: there as a placeholder must be distinguished from their, the possessive, and from they’re, the contraction.

Answer: B

Correct answer: believe

In the pattern one of those + plural noun + who, the relative pronoun refers back to the plural noun, not to one. Here who stands for managers, so the verb is the plural believe. Rearranging the sentence makes it plain: of those managers who believe in delegating authority, he is one. It is the managers who hold the belief; he is a member of that group. The trap is that one sits closest to the verb and pulls the ear towards the singular. The rule reverses when the only is inserted: he is the only one of those managers who believes in delegating authority - there the relative refers to the only one, and the singular becomes correct. That phrase flips the answer entirely, so it is worth watching for. Believe is also a stative verb and resists the continuous form.

Answer: B

Correct answer: when the delegates began to leave

Hardly is completed by when, never by than. Only no sooner takes than. The difference is grammatical rather than arbitrary: sooner is a comparative, and comparatives are completed by than, whereas hardly and scarcely are not comparatives and take the temporal when. The rest of the sentence is correctly built. Because it opens with the restrictive adverb hardly, the subject and auxiliary are inverted - had the meeting concluded, not the meeting had concluded. And the earlier of the two past actions takes the past perfect while the later takes the simple past. The four correct pairings are worth memorising as a set: hardly…when, scarcely…when, barely…when and no sooner…than. The ear accepts either combination, so only memory protects against the error.

Answer: C

It should read had known.

The main clause is would have waited, a third conditional, so the if-clause takes the past perfect. Knew belongs with would wait, not would have waited.

Answer: A

Correct answer: of stealing

Accuse takes the preposition of: accused of stealing. The verb it is most often confused with is charge, which takes with: charged with theft. Learning the two together is the surest way to keep them apart, since the meanings are so close. A wider group of legal verbs takes fixed prepositions that must simply be memorised: blame someone for, suspect someone of, convict someone of, acquit someone of, punish someone for, prosecute someone for and indict someone for. Accuse of is followed by a noun or a gerund - of theft, of stealing - and never by an infinitive, which disposes of to steal. The passive keeps the same preposition as the active: they accused him of stealing becomes he was accused of stealing.

Answer: B

Correct answer: insisted on paying

Insist takes the preposition on followed by a gerund: insisted on paying. It is never followed by an infinitive. The general rule beneath it is that a preposition is always followed by a gerund, never by an infinitive - which also disposes of any form with to after the preposition. A set of verbs takes a fixed preposition and a gerund in the same way: succeed in, persist in, refrain from, prevent from, object to, consist of, approve of, think of, congratulate on and concentrate on. The alternative construction for insist uses a that clause with the subjunctive: he insisted that he pay for the meal - note the bare verb, without should and without the -s. Compare persuade and urge, which do take the infinitive, showing that the pattern must be learned verb by verb.