At breakfast, Dad asked (1)Hilary and I if we (2)wanted to attend (3)my cousin Noah's university graduation ceremony in Nebraska (4)next spring.
Answer(s): A
JustificationThe clause “Dad asked ___ if we wanted…” functions as the object of the verb asked .When a pronoun is the object of a verb, the objective case (me, us, him, them) is required.“Hilary and I” is in the nominative case; the correct object form is “Hilary and me.”Consequently, part (1) – the phrase “Hilary and I” – contains the grammatical error, making option A the correct choice.Option B (“wanted”) is unproblematic; it correctly agrees with the subject we .Option C (“my cousin Noah's”) is a properly formed possessive noun phrase modifying graduation ceremony.Option D (“next spring”) is an adverbial time expression and introduces no error.Option E (“No Error”) is inaccurate because an error does exist in part (1) .
Purdue Online Writing Lab. Pronoun Case. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/pronoun_case.html Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., §5.2. Pronoun Case. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book_ed17/part3/0502.html
(1)As Shirin Abadi (2)was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, many of her colleagues (3)praised her exceptional efforts (4)about democracy and human rights in Iran.
Answer(s): D
JustificationOption D (“about”) is incorrect because the preposition must modify the noun efforts; the idiomatic collocation is “efforts in democracy and human rights.” Using “about” creates a grammatical mismatch and makes the phrase sound unnatural. Option A (“As”) is correct; it introduces the subordinate clause that provides background information about Shirin Abadi and is properly placed before the verb phrase. Option B (“was awarded”) is also correct; it accurately conveys the passive verb phrase describing the Nobel Prize. Option C (“praised”) is correct; it matches the past-tense verb needed to describe the colleagues’ reaction. Option E (“No Error”) is therefore not appropriate because the error lies in the preposition in option D.Hence, the error is identified in Option D .
Purdue OWL – Prepositions: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/prepositions.html Cambridge Dictionary – “effort in” usage: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/effort-in?view=ukPrepared for SAT/ACT style error-identification practice.
Among the great moments of the twentieth century, the toppling of the Berlin Wall by East Germans (1)are (2)probably seen by (3)them as one of the (4)most felicitous.
Technical justificationThe clause “the toppling of the Berlin Wall by East Germans” is a singular noun phrase ; the head noun toppling is singular and functions as the grammatical subject of the verb that follows. Consequently, the verb must be in the singular past-tense form “was” . The plural form “are” does not agree with this subject and therefore constitutes a subject-verb disagreement error . Option A identifies this exact verb form, so it is the only item that correctly pinpoints the error. Option B (“probably seen”) is a grammatically acceptable passive construction; it does not introduce any agreement problem. Option C (“them”) correctly refers back to East Germans, a plural antecedent, and is therefore appropriate. Option D (“most felicitous”) is an adjective phrase that properly modifies moment; there is no lexical or syntactic fault. Option E (“No Error”) would be selected only if none of the underlined items contained a mistake, which is not the case because of the mismatch in number between toppling and are.Hence, the error lies in the verb form in option A , and the other alternatives are syntactically sound.
Purdue OWL – Subject-Verb Agreement: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/citation_and_style/subject_verb_agreement.html Grammarly – Common Subject-Verb Agreement Mistakes: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/subject-verb-agreement/
(1)They were relieved (2)when monsoons (3)carried rain from the southern seas (4)and replenished India's drought-stricken water supply.
JustificationOption A (“They”) – The pronoun they lacks a clear antecedent in the sentence. It appears to refer to an unspecified group that is “relieved,” but the only explicit noun phrase introduced later is monsoons. Because the referent is ambiguous, the construction violates standard pronoun-antecedent agreement rules, making the sentence ungrammatical in formal writing. Option B (“when”) – The subordinating conjunction when correctly introduces the temporal clause when monsoons carried rain…; no error is present. Option C (“carried”) – The verb carried is correctly used in the past tense to describe the action of the monsoons; it agrees with the plural subject monsoons. Option D (“and”) – The coordinating conjunction and properly links two parallel verb phrases (carried rain and replenished water supply); it is not erroneous. Option E (“No Error”) – Since a clear pronoun-reference problem exists, “No Error” cannot be selected.Therefore, the best answer is A , because the ambiguous pronoun they creates a reference error that must be corrected (e.g., by replacing it with a specific noun or re-phrasing the sentence).
Purdue Online Writing Lab – Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/pronouns.html The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., §5.70–5.73 – Clarity of Pronoun References: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book_17/part3/chapter11/section5.html
The quarterback, after his startling (1)failure to throw a complete pass, (2)went about (3)absolute shamefaced and was available to (4)only a few of his teammates.
Answer(s): C
Why option C is the errorThe phrase “absolute shamefaced” (item 3) is not idiomatic English.Shamefaced already conveys a sense of being embarrassed or ashamed; adding absolute creates a redundant intensifier that does not fit standard usage. The more natural construction would be either “ashamed” or “shame-faced” without the modifier, or simply “shamefaced” on its own. Because the error lies in the adjective phrase, the correct answer is C .Why the other options are not erroneousA: “failure to” – This prepositional phrase correctly introduces the cause of the quarterback’s reaction; there is no grammatical or lexical problem. B. “went about” – The verb phrase went about is idiomatic and properly links the quarterback’s action to the manner in which he behaved afterward. D. “only a few” – This quantifier correctly modifies teammates and follows standard English syntax. E. “No Error” – Incorrect because we have identified a clear lexical issue in option C.
Merriam-Webster definition of shamefaced: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shamefaced The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., section on “Redundant Modifiers”: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed17/part3/13.html
(1)By tracing the source of artifacts found in Europe, researchers (2)determined that the pattern of Viking settlements (3)were (4)generally similar, but varied in response to different climates.
JustificationThe subject of the clause is “pattern” , a singular collective noun. A singular subject requires a singular verb; therefore the verb must be “was” , not “were.” Option C (“were”) creates a subject-verb disagreement and is the only error in the sentence. Option A (“By tracing”) is a correct introductory phrase; it does not violate any grammatical rule. Option B (“determined”) correctly matches the past-tense verb needed for the clause. Option D (“generally”) is an adverb that properly modifies “similar” and introduces no error. Option E (“No Error”) is inaccurate because the sentence does contain the error identified in option C.Hence, option C is the best answer because it pinpoints the precise grammatical mistake, while the other options either are error-free or do not address the actual problem.
Purdue Online Writing Lab – Subject-Verb Agreement: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/subject_verb_agreement.html Grammarly Handbook – Singular vs. Plural Verbs: https://handbook.grammarly.com/grammar/subject-verb-agreement.html
Vincent Chernof created ground-breaking musical works and they superimposed lovely melodies over dissonant harmonies.
Why option D is correctRestrictive relative clause – The phrase works that superimposed lovely melodies over dissonant harmonies is essential to identify which works are being discussed. In English, a restrictive clause is introduced by that (or sometimes by a relative pronoun such as who or which when the antecedent is a person). Using that signals that the clause is not optional information but a defining characteristic of works. Correct modifier placement – That directly modifies works, positioning the verb superimposed immediately after the noun it describes. This creates a clear, compact noun-phrase: works that superimposed… . The structure mirrors standard academic prose: [Noun] + that + [verb phrase]. Parallelism and concision – Option D preserves the parallel structure of the original sentence and avoids unnecessary punctuation or extra words, keeping the sentence concise and readable—an important criterion in formal writing and test-item construction.Why the other options are inferiorA: “works and they superimposed” – Introduces an independent clause (they superimposed) that is not properly linked to works. The conjunction and creates a comma splice and fails to embed the action as a defining attribute of the works. B. “works, which superimposing” – Uses which with a non-finite verb form (superimposing), producing a dangling modifier. The clause is not a complete predicate and the punctuation suggests a non-restrictive clause, which would incorrectly imply that the superimposing is additional, optional information. C. “works, they superimposed” – Similar to A, it joins two independent clauses with a comma, resulting in a comma splice. It also lacks the restrictive relative marker needed to define works. E. “works, and superimposed” – The comma and conjunction again create a fragment; superimposed lacks a subject, leaving the clause incomplete and grammatically incorrect.Conclusion – Only option D supplies a grammatically complete, restrictive relative clause introduced by that, correctly linking the action of superimposing to the noun works without introducing errors of punctuation, clause type, or missing subjects.
Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) – Restrictive and Non-restrictive Clauses: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/restrictive_clauses.htmlGrammarly Handbook – Relative Clauses: https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/relative-clausesThese sources provide detailed explanations of restrictive relative clause formation and proper placement of modifiers, supporting the grammatical rationale above.
New technology in diving equipment allows divers to discover new species that congregate and feed close to the bottom of the ocean.
Why option A is the best choiceParallelism with the infinitive “to discover” – The sentence begins with the purpose clause “New technology … allows divers …”. The most natural continuation is an infinitive phrase that expresses that purpose: “to discover new species …” . Option A preserves this infinitive structure. Correct prepositional phrase – The phrase “close to the bottom of the ocean” is correctly expressed as “close to” followed by the noun phrase “the bottom of the ocean”. Option A uses exactly this construction. No extra or missing words – Option A adds only the necessary words “that congregate and feed” without altering the original meaning or introducing grammatical errors. It keeps the relative clause concise and parallel to the main clause. Avoids redundancy or awkwardness – The other options either insert unnecessary words (“have discovered”, “in and feed from”), change the verb form (“who”), or insert an extra preposition (“in and feed from”), which disrupts the flow and creates a less idiomatic expression.Why the other options are less suitableB: “to have discovered …” – Shifts the tense to perfect infinitive, implying a completed action that is not supported by the present-tense context; it also adds an unnecessary auxiliary verb. C. “to discover new species that congregate in and feed close to …” – The phrase “in and feed close to” is awkward; “in” does not logically modify “feed”, and the placement of “close to” after “feed” creates ambiguity. D. “to discover new species that congregate in and feed from close to …” – Introduces the preposition “from” where it is not needed, and the combination “in and feed from” is ungrammatical in this context. E. “to discover new species who congregate and feed close to …” – Uses the relative pronoun “who” for non-human (species) objects; “that” is the appropriate relative pronoun for animals or things in this construction.Conclusion Option A maintains proper infinitive purpose, correct prepositional usage, and idiomatic relative-clause structure, making it the most grammatically and stylistically appropriate completion.
Cambridge Dictionary – “close to” usage: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/close-to Purdue OWL – Relative clauses and pronoun choice: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/relative_clauses.html
Post your Comments and Discuss College Board SAT exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the SAT content, but please register or login to continue.