Choice C is the best answer because Tocqueville’s main point is that unity and association strengthen society.

Choice A is incorrect because it “Misinterprets “science of association” as scientific knowledge rather than social unity.”

Choice B is incorrect because it ‘Overemphasizes democracy alone rather than unity’s importance in all societies.’

Choice D is incorrect because it “Confuses “division” with diversity instead of disunity.”

Focus on phrases like “When men are united, they become more powerful.”

Choice D is the best answer because “This phrase best captures the idea that unity strengthens and division weakens society.”

Choice A is incorrect because “Refers to “association,” but doesn’t convey the main idea of unity’s power.”

Choice B is incorrect because “Vague reference to progress; lacks a direct connection to unity.”

Choice C is incorrect because “Partial support, but doesn’t emphasize the weakening effect of division.”

Look for the phrase that directly reinforces the main point.

Choice D is the best answer because it uses precise, formal language that matches the tone of the passage.

Choice A is incorrect because “Informal phrases (“kind of bad”) weaken the formal tone.”

Choice B is incorrect because “Casual language (“mess up”) disrupts the professional tone.”

Choice C is incorrect because “Slightly less formal, but “finite and harmful” could work as an alternative.”

Match the language level and style to the original passage.

Choice C is the best answer because it provides direct support for the benefits of renewable energy, adding economic advantages to environmental benefits.

Choice A is incorrect because “Too specific about solar conditions; doesn’t support the main idea.”

Choice B is incorrect because “Fact about wind energy location, not its importance.”

Choice D is incorrect because “Related to fossil fuels, not directly promoting renewable energy.”

Choose answers that reinforce the positive points about renewable energy.

Choice B is the best answer because Mill argues for individual freedom as long as it does not harm others.

Choice A is incorrect because it “Misinterprets Mill’s advocacy for personal freedom over conformity.”

Choice C is incorrect because it “Contradicts Mill’s emphasis on self-direction.”

Choice D is incorrect because “Overemphasizes community interest, while Mill prioritizes individual freedom.”

Focus on the phrasing around personal freedom and respect for others’ autonomy.

Choice B is the best answer because it describes data from the graph that weaken the students’ conclusion about the reduction in the spider population in the enclosure with lizards. The graph shows that the enclosure with lizards and the enclosure without lizards each began with about 85 spiders, and the number of spiders in each enclosure fell over the 30 days of the study. The student’s claim
is that the reduction in spiders in the enclosure with lizards is “entirely attributable to the presence of the lizards,” meaning that the spider population wouldn’t have declined except for the presence of the lizards. This claim is weakened, however, by the fact that the enclosure without lizards also saw a substantial reduction in the number of spiders. Since the number of spiders fell in the enclosure without lizards as well as in the enclosure with lizards, there must be some other factor than just the presence of the lizards that contributed to the reduction in the spider population.

Choice A is incorrect because the fact that the two enclosures started with the same number of spiders is irrelevant to the claim that the reduction in spider population by day 30 in the enclosure with lizards can be entirely attributed to the lizards.

Choice C is incorrect because the fact that the spider population in the enclosure with lizards fell more between days 1 and 10 than in other periods has nothing to do with the student’s claim that the reduction in spiders in that enclosure by day 30 can be entirely attributed to the lizards.

Choice D is incorrect. Although it’s true that on day 30 the spider population was lower in the enclosure with lizards than in the enclosure without lizards, this fact doesn’t weaken the student’s claim that the reduction in the spider population in the enclosure with lizards can be entirely attributed to the lizards. Indeed, the lower spider population in the enclosure with lizards suggests that the lizards are contributing to the reduction in the spider population, though the fact that the spider population also fell substantially in the other enclosure means that the lizards aren’t the only
cause of the reduction.

Understand the graph, but first, skim the paragraph to find the student’s conclusion about lizards.

Choice A is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would most strongly support the team’s conclusion that cattle were likely raised closer to human settlements than sheep and goats were. The text explains that Vaiglova, Liu, and their colleagues analyzed the chemical composition of sheep, goat, and cattle bones from the Bronze Age in China in order to investigate the animals’ domestication, or their adaptation from a wild state to a state in which they existed in close connection with humans. According to the text, the team’s analysis showed that sheep and goats of the era fed largely on wild plants, whereas cattle fed on millet—importantly, a crop cultivated by humans. If analysis of the animal bones shows that the cattle’s diet also consisted of wheat, another crop cultivated by humans in China during the Bronze Age, the finding would support the team’s conclusion by offering additional evidence that cattle during this era fed on human-grown crops—and, by extension, that humans raised cattle relatively close to the settlements where they grew these crops, leaving goats and sheep to roam farther away in areas with wild vegetation, uncultivated by humans.

Choice B is incorrect because if it were true that sheep’s and goats’ diets consisted of small portions of millet, which the text states was a crop cultivated by humans, the finding would suggest that sheep and goats were raised relatively close to human settlements, weakening the team’s conclusion that cattle were likely raised closer to those settlements than sheep and goats were.

Choice C is incorrect because the finding that cattle generally require more food and nutrients than do sheep and goats wouldn’t support the team’s conclusion that cattle were likely raised closer to human settlements than sheep and goats were. Nothing in the text suggests that cattle were incapable of obtaining sufficient food and nutrients without access to human-grown crops. Hence, even if cattle’s
diets are found to have different requirements than the diets of sheep and goats, the cattle could have met those requirements from food located far from human settlements.

Choice D is incorrect because if it were true that the diets of sheep, goats, and cattle varied based on what the farmers in each Bronze Age settlement could grow, the finding would weaken the team’s conclusion that cattle were likely raised closer to human settlements than sheep and goats were, suggesting instead that all three types of animals were raised close enough to human settlements to feed on those settlements’ crops.

Although, you see the conclusion at the end for assurance, skim through the paragraph.

Choice C is the best answer because it presents the finding that, if true, would best support Suarez, Pérez-Huerta, and Harrell’s claim about mosasaurs. The text states that Suarez, Pérez-Huerta, and Harrell’s research on mosasaur tooth enamel led them to conclude that mosasaurs were endothermic, which means that they could live in waters at many different temperatures and still maintain
a stable body temperature. The researchers claim that endothermy enabled mosasaurs live in relatively cold waters near the poles. If several mosasaurs fossils have been found in areas that were near the poles during the period when mosasaurs were alive and fossils of non-endothermic marine reptiles are
rare in such locations, that would support the researchers’ claim: it would show that mosasaurs inhabited polar waters but non-endothermic marine mammals tended not to, suggesting that endothermy may have been the characteristic that enabled mosasaurs to include polar waters in their range.

Choice A is incorrect because finding that it’s easier to determine mosasaur body temperatures from tooth enamel data than it is to determine non-endothermic reptile body temperatures wouldn’t support the researchers’ claim. Whether one research process is more difficult than another indicates nothing about the results of those processes and therefore is irrelevant to the issue of where mosasaurs lived and what enabled them to live in those locations.

Choice B is incorrect because finding roughly equal numbers of mosasaur and non-endothermic marine reptile fossils in areas that were near the poles in the Late Cretaceous would suggest that endothermy didn’t give mosasaurs any particular advantage when it came to expanding their range to include relatively cold polar waters, thereby weakening the researchers’ claim rather than supporting it.

Choice D is incorrect because finding that the temperature of seawater in the Late Cretaceous was
warmer than seawater today wouldn’t weaken the researchers’ claim. Seawater in the Late Cretaceous could have been warmer than seawater today but still cold enough for endothermy to be advantageous to mosasaurs, so this finding wouldn’t provide enough information to either support or weaken the researchers’ claim.

My advice is the same as the 7th question.

Choice D is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would most directly support the researchers’ hypothesis about the connection between the dusky shark population decline and the eastern oyster population decline. The text indicates that although dusky sharks don’t usually eat eastern oysters, they do consume cow nose rays, which are the main predators of eastern oysters.
An increase in the abundance of cow nose rays in the region in response to a decline in the abundance of dusky sharks would directly support the researchers’ hypothesis: a higher number of cow nose rays would consume more eastern oysters, driving down the oyster population.

Choice A is incorrect because a finding that there’s an association between a decline in the regional abundance of some of dusky sharks’ prey and the regional abundance of dusky sharks wouldn’t directly support the researchers’ hypothesis that a decline in dusky sharks has led to a decline in eastern oysters in the region. Although such a finding might help explain why shark abundance
has declined, it would reveal nothing about whether the shark decline is related to the oyster decline.

Choice B is incorrect because a finding that eastern oyster abundance tends to be greater when dusky sharks and cow nose rays are present than when only dusky sharks are present wouldn’t support the researchers’ hypothesis that a decline in dusky sharks has led to a decline in eastern oysters in the region. The text indicates that the sharks prey on the rays, which are the main predators of the oysters; if oyster abundance is found to be greater when rays are present than when rays are absent, that would suggest that rays aren’t keeping oyster abundance down, and thus a decline in rays’ predators, which would be expected to lead to an increase in the abundance of rays, wouldn’t bring
about a decline in oyster abundance as the researchers hypothesize.

Choice C is incorrect because a finding that consumption of eastern oysters by cow nose rays increased substantially before dusky sharks declined in regional abundance wouldn’t support the researchers’ hypothesis that the decline in dusky sharks has led to a decline in eastern oysters in the region. Such a finding would suggest that some factors other than shark abundance led to an increase in rays’ consumption of oysters and thus to a decrease in oyster abundance, thereby weakening the
researchers’ hypothesis.

Same technique to follow.

Choice C is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would weaken the claim made by people who favor the traditional view of voter behavior. According to the text, people who favor that view believe that voting in an election doesn’t change a voter’s attitude toward the candidates in that election. If Washington and Mullainathan found that two years after an election, attitudes
toward the winning candidate were significantly more polarized among subjects who had voted than among subjects who had been too young to vote, which would suggest that the act of voting did have an effect on the voters’ attitudes toward the candidates, which would undermine the claim that voting doesn’t change voters’ attitudes.

Choice A is incorrect because a finding about links between subjects’ attitudes and general political orientation, regardless of age and ability to vote, wouldn’t address the presence or absence of changes in attitudes among those subjects who did actually vote. Therefore, the finding wouldn’t have any bearing on the claim that voting in an election doesn’t change a voter’s attitude toward the
candidates in that election.

Choice B is incorrect because a finding that positive attitudes toward a winning candidate significantly increased in the two years after the election among subjects who had been too young to vote would involve only people who didn’t vote; therefore, the finding wouldn’t have any bearing on the claim that when people do vote, the act of voting doesn’t change their attitudes toward the candidates.

Choice D is incorrect because the finding that subjects in both groups were more likely to have negative attitudes than positive attitudes toward the winning candidate two years after an election would reflect all subjects’ attitudes at one particular time whether they voted or not, rather than
the presence or absence of a change in voters’ attitudes after voting. Therefore, the finding would neither weaken nor strengthen the claim that voting in an election doesn’t change a voter’s attitude toward the candidates.

Same procedure as the above.

Choice A is the best answer because it presents a finding that, if true, would support the scholar’s claim about Toni Morrison’s likely goal of strengthening the presence of Black writers on Random House’s list of published authors. The text explains that Morrison was the first Black woman to be an editor for Random House and that she was an editor there from 1967 to 1983. If it were true that Random House published a higher percentage of works by Black authors throughout the 1970s—during most of Morrison’s time working there—than it had previously published, that would suggest that Morrison may have made a deliberate effort to strengthen the presence of Black authors on the list of Random House’s published authors, thus supporting the scholar’s claim.

Choice B is incorrect because the scholar’s claim is about Morrison’s work as an editor at a publishing company and her likely effort to strengthen the presence of Black writers on that company’s list of published authors. It might be true that Black authors interviewed in the 1980s and 1990s often cited Morrison’s novels as an influence on their work, but that finding would simply suggest something about how those authors approached their work; it wouldn’t show that Morrison intended to increase the number of Black writers among the published authors specifically at Random House.

Choice C is incorrect because the scholar’s claim is about Morrison’s work as an editor at a publishing company, not about her work as a novelist. Therefore, a finding that Morrison’s novels published after 1983 sold more copies and were more widely acclaimed than her earlier novels would have no bearing on the claim that as an editor Morrison made an effort to ensure that more Black writers were present on Random House’s list of published authors.

Choice D is incorrect. Although the text discusses Morrison’s work as an editor at Random House, the scholar’s claim focuses on Morrison’s likely effort in that role to increase the number of Black writers present on Random House’s list of published authors, not on the influence she may have had on the content of the works she edited. Without knowing whether Morrison’s stylistic influence led to more publications or if Morrison applied her influence specifically to works by Black writers, the finding that works edited by Morrison could be identified by stylistic characteristics would have no bearing on the claim that Morrison intended to strengthen the presence of Black writers among the published authors at Random House.

Work on your skimming skills and attempt more questions like this.

Choice A is the best answer because it most effectively illustrates the claim that Martí argues that a society’s spiritual well-being depends on the character of its literary culture. In the quotation, Martí asserts that poetry is “more necessary to a people than industry itself” and that it has the power to provide people with “faith and vigor.” He also adds that literature gives people “the desire and strength for life.” Therefore, this quotation shows that Martí believes that literature is a societal necessity because it uplifts people and nourishes their spiritual well-being.

Choice B is incorrect. Although this quotation emphasizes the importance of literature, it focuses on how the nature of a society is reflected in that society’s literature rather than on literature’s value for people’s spiritual well-being.

Choice C is incorrect. Although this quotation involves an element of spirituality, it doesn’t discuss literature. The quotation instead focuses on humanity’s actions.

Choice D is incorrect because this quotation mainly focuses on the importance of Walt Whitman rather than on the value of literature in general.

You should have knowledge of the essay, it is from your school curriculum.

Choice C is the best answer because it accurately describes data from the table that support Barrett and Rayfield’s suggestion about bite force estimates. According to the text, Barrett and Rayfield believe that estimates of dinosaur bite force may be strongly influenced by the methods used to produce them—that is, that different methods may produce significantly different results. The table shows that the studies by Bates and Falkingham and by Cost et al. used the same estimation method (muscular and skeletal modeling) and produced similar bite force estimates (approximately 35,000–57,000 newtons and 35,000–63,000 newtons, respectively). The study by Meers, however, used body-mass scaling and produced a much higher bite force estimate (183,000–235,000 newtons), while the study by Gignac and Erickson used tooth-bone interaction analysis and produced a much lower bite force estimate (8,000–34,000 newtons). The fact that one method produced similar estimates in two different studies and that two different methods used in other studies produced substantially different estimates supports the idea that dinosaur bite force estimates are significantly influenced by the methodology used to produce them.

Choice A is incorrect because it inaccurately describes data from the table. The table does show that the studies by Meers and by Cost et al. used different estimation methods and produced very different ranges of estimated dinosaur bite force, which would support Barrett and Rayfield’s suggestion that different methodologies may produce significantly different estimates. However, the table doesn’t show that the study by Meers produced the lowest estimated maximum bite force while the study by Cost et al. produced the highest. In fact, the study by Meers estimated a maximum bite force of approximately 235,000 newtons, which is the highest of all the estimated maximums.

Choice B is incorrect. Although the data from Gignac and Ericson’s study are accurately described, a single set of findings from one study using only one methodology can’t show that different methodologies may produce significantly different dinosaur bite force estimates, as Barrett and Rayfield suggest.

Choice D is incorrect. Although the table shows that the maximum bite force estimated by Cost et al. was higher than that estimated by Bates and Falkingham, the difference is relatively small; in fact, both teams estimated a minimum bite force of approximately 35,000 newtons and a maximum bite force close to approximately 60,000 newtons. Because these findings demonstrate that a single methodology (muscular and skeletal modeling) produced similar overall results in two studies, the findings don’t support Barrett and Rayfield’s suggestion that different methodologies may produce significantly different dinosaur bite force estimates.

This a time-consuming yet interesting question, attempt more questions like this. It will be easy when you get the hang of it.

Choice A is the best answer because it most effectively uses data from the table to support the researchers’ conclusion about the harvesting of clamshells by Neanderthals for use as tools. The text explains that Neanderthals used clamshells to make tools and that the sturdiest, and therefore the most desirable, shells for this purpose are found on the seafloor, not on the beach. However, the researchers also concluded that the clamshell tools made from shells from the seafloor are rarer than those made from shells from the beach. Meanwhile the table shows that at each depth, the number of tools made from shells from the beach exceeds the number made from the more desirable shells from the seafloor. The fact that the more desirable shells are less common suggests that it was significantly more difficult to harvest shells from the seafloor than from the beach.

Choice B is incorrect because knowing which depth represents the period of time with the highest Neanderthal population does not help answer the question of why the Neanderthals consistently made more tools from the less desirable shells from the beach than they made from the more desirable shells from the seafloor.

Choice C is incorrect because it claims that the beach shells are more durable than the seafloor shells, which contradicts the text’s description of shells from the seafloor as smoother and sturdier than shells from the beach.

Choice D is incorrect because knowing which depth has the most artifacts or whether the clam population fluctuated does not help explain why tools made from the less desirable shells from the beach outnumber tools made from the more desirable shells from the seafloor.

This is a time-consuming yet interesting question, attempt more questions like this. It will be easy when you get the hang of it.

Choice C is the best answer because it describes data from the table that supports the researcher’s hypothesis. According to the text, the researcher hypothesized that Arctic ground squirrels would exhibit longer torpor bouts and shorter arousal episodes than Alaska marmots do—or, put the other way, that the marmots would show shorter torpor bouts and longer arousal episodes than the ground squirrels do. The table shows data about torpor bouts and arousal episodes for the two species from 2008 to 2011. According to the table, the average duration of torpor bouts was 13.81 days for Alaska marmots, shorter than the average of 16.77 days for Arctic ground squirrels, and the average duration of arousal episodes was 21.2 hours for Alaska marmots, longer than the average of 14.2 hours for Arctic ground squirrels. Thus, the table supports the researcher’s hypothesis by showing that Alaska marmots had shorter bouts of torpor and longer arousal episodes than Arctic ground squirrels did.

Choice A is incorrect because it inaccurately describes data from the table and doesn’t support the researcher’s hypothesis. The table shows that the average duration of arousal episodes was less than a day for both Alaska marmots (21.2 hours) and Arctic ground squirrels (14.2 hours). Additionally, information about arousal episodes for Alaska marmots and Arctic ground squirrels isn’t sufficient to support a hypothesis involving comparisons of both arousal episodes and torpor bouts for those animals.

Choice B is incorrect because it doesn’t support the researcher’s hypothesis, which involves comparisons of arousal episodes as well as torpor bouts for Alaska marmots and Arctic ground squirrels. Noting that both animals had torpor bouts lasting several days, on average, doesn’t address arousal episodes at all, nor does it reveal how the animals’ torpor bouts compared.

Choice D is incorrect because it doesn’t support the researcher’s hypothesis. Although the table does show that Alaska marmots had more torpor bouts (12) than arousal episodes (11) and that their arousal episodes were much shorter than their torpor bouts (21.2 hours and 13.81 days, respectively), comparing data across only Alaska marmot behaviors isn’t sufficient to support a hypothesis about torpor and arousal behaviors of both Alaska marmots and Arctic ground squirrels.

This a time-consuming yet interesting question, attempt more questions like this. It will be easy when you get the hang of it.

Choice B is the best answer because it describes data from the table that supports Persad and her colleagues’ conclusions. The text explains that, according to some climate models, precipitation in the western United States will become concentrated into fewer, more intense rain and snow events. According to the text, Persad and her colleagues concluded that more irrigation will consequently
be needed but the change in irrigation output will be highly sensitive to, or greatly affected by, the baseline concentration of precipitation in an area. This conclusion is supported by data from the researchers’ simulations of changes in annual irrigation output in two different scenarios—one in which an area’s annual precipitation is already somewhat concentrated and one in which its annual
precipitation is evenly distributed. The table shows that if baseline precipitation is somewhat concentrated, water use for irrigation will increase only slightly, whereas if baseline precipitation is evenly distributed, water use for irrigation will increase much more—9.0% for surface water and 7.9% for groundwater. This difference illustrates the researchers’ conclusion that the amount of additional
water needed for irrigation will vary greatly depending on how concentrated or spread out the annual precipitation in an area already is.

Choice A is incorrect because it compares changes in the amount of water being used for irrigation to changes in the amount of water entering aquifers. Persad and her colleagues’ conclusion doesn’t focus on changes to the amount of water entering aquifers; rather, the researchers’ conclusion focuses on changes to irrigation output relative to how concentrated or spread out the annual precipitation in an area is.

Choice C is incorrect because it supports only part of Persad and her colleagues’ conclusions. According to the text, the researchers concluded that the concentration of precipitation in fewer events will trigger more irrigation but that this change in irrigation output will be highly sensitive to
an area’s baseline concentration of annual precipitation. The data in this choice support the idea that more irrigation will be needed, but to support the rest of the researchers’ conclusion, additional data from the table are required to show that the increases in water use for irrigation will vary depending on how concentrated or spread out the annual precipitation in an area already is.

Choice D is incorrect because data in the table indicate no decline in water use for irrigation, showing
only increases in the form of positive values.

Don’t get intimidated by words like Persad, focus on the content that asks conclusion. First, look into the table, understand it then skim through the paragraph to conclude.

Choice A is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of English dialects spoken in Scotland and the Upland South. The text indicates that these dialects share a feature: putting emphasis on the “r” sound when it appears in certain positions in words. The text goes on to state that records indicate the Upland South was colonized largely by people of Scottish
ancestry. It is reasonable to assume that the English dialects spoken by these colonizers were influenced by the English dialects spoken by their ancestors in Scotland. It follows, then, that the emphasis on the “r” sound in the dialects in Scotland carried over into the Upland South dialects as they developed—that is, the Upland South dialects likely acquired it from dialects spoken in Scotland.

Choice B is incorrect because the text suggests that Scottish ancestry explains the origin of the emphasis on the “r” sound in English dialects spoken in the Upland South, since that linguistic feature is also found in dialects spoken in Scotland; the text doesn’t address any other dialects or suggest that the feature will spread elsewhere.

Choice C is incorrect because the text indicates that many Upland South colonizers were the descendants of Scottish people, suggesting that the English dialects spoken by these colonizers had been influenced by the English dialects spoken by the colonizers’ ancestors in Scotland and had acquired their emphasis on the “r” sound from those ancestors’ dialects—not the other
way around.

Choice D is incorrect because the text indicates that the emphasis on the “r” sound is part of English dialects spoken in the Upland South today, which almost certainly wouldn’t be the case if people from Scotland, who were the main colonizers of the Upland South had eliminated that linguistic feature from their dialects.

Always remember the end blank will ask for a conclusion, you should work on your skimming skills to go through big paragraphs accurately.

Choice A is the best answer. The convention being tested is the use of verb forms within a sentence. A main clause requires a finite (tensed) verb to perform the action of the subject (in this case, Nery and her colleagues), and this choice supplies the finite past tense verb “published” to indicate that these biologists shared their findings about changes in whale genes associated with body size.

Choice B is incorrect because it results in an ungrammatical sentence. The nonfinite participle “publishing” doesn’t supply the main clause with a finite verb.

Choice C is incorrect because it results in an ungrammatical sentence. The nonfinite participle “having published” doesn’t supply the main clause with a finite verb.

Choice D is incorrect because it results in an ungrammatical sentence. The nonfinite to-infinitive “to publish” doesn’t supply the main clause with a finite verb.

Work on Tense (Participles), Gerund, and Infinitive to understand better. Learn Tenses.

Choice B is the best answer. The convention being tested is punctuation use between a subject and a verb. When, as in this case, a subject (“the strings inside the instrument”) is immediately followed by a main verb (“are plucked”), no punctuation is needed.

Choice A is incorrect because no punctuation is needed between the subject and the verb.

Choice C is incorrect because no punctuation is needed between the subject and the verb.

Choice D is incorrect because no punctuation is needed between the subject and the verb.

Start learning Punctuation to better understand it.

Choice A is the best answer. The convention being tested is pronoun-antecedent agreement. The plural pronoun “them” agrees in number with the plural antecedent “utensils.”

Choice B is incorrect because the singular pronoun “this” doesn’t agree in number with the plural antecedent “utensils.”

Choice C is incorrect because the singular pronoun “that” doesn’t agree in number with the plural antecedent “utensils.”

Choice D is incorrect because the singular pronoun “it” doesn’t agree in number with the plural antecedent “utensils.”

You should work on Pronouns to better understand it. Learn Pronoun.

Choice A is the best answer. The convention being tested is subject-modifier placement. This choice makes the noun phrase “topological tapestries” the subject of the sentence and places it immediately after the modifying phrase “woven…grandmother.” In doing so, this choice clearly establishes that the
topological tapestries—and not another noun in the sentence—are being described as woven from recycled yarn and hand tufted.

Choice B is incorrect because it results in a dangling modifier. The placement of the noun phrase “Argentine textile artist Alexandra Kehayoglou” immediately after the modifying phrase illogically suggests that Kehayoglou is woven from recycled yarn and hand-tufted.

Choice C is incorrect because it results in a dangling modifier. The placement of the pronoun “she” and the noun phrase “Argentine textile artist Alexandra Kehayoglou” after the modifying phrase illogically
suggests that Kehayoglou is woven from recycled yarn and hand-tufted.

Choice D is incorrect because it results in a dangling modifier. The placement of the noun “Alexandra Kehayoglou” immediately after the modifying phrase illogically suggests that Kehayoglou is woven from recycled yarn and hand-tufted.

Work on your skimming and grammatical skills to answer correctly.

Choice C is the best answer. The convention being tested is the coordination of main clauses within a sentence. This choice uses a semicolon in a conventional way to join the first main clause (“Clear… through”) and the second main clause (“wax…through”).

Choice A is incorrect because it results in a comma splice. Without a conjunction following it, a comma can’t be used in this way to join two main clauses.

Choice B is incorrect because it results in a run-on sentence. The two main clauses (“Clear…through” and “wax…through”) are fused without punctuation and/or a conjunction. Furthermore, it results in a confusing and illogical sentence that suggests clear glass allows light to pass through wax paper, which doesn’t make sense in this context.

Choice D is incorrect because when coordinating two longer main clauses such as these, it’s conventional to use a comma before the coordinating conjunction.

Learn Punctuation and Conjunction.

Choice B is the best answer. The convention being tested is the punctuation of elements in a complex series. It’s conventional to use a semicolon to separate items in a complex series with internal punctuation, and in this choice, the semicolon after “leaves” is conventionally used to separate the first item (“natural debris, such as dried leaves”) and the second item (“man-made trash, such as plastic bags”) in the series of materials used by Gavua. Further, the comma after “trash” correctly separates the noun phrase “man-made trash” from the supplementary phrase (“such as plastic bags”) that describes it.

Choice A is incorrect because a comma after “leaves” doesn’t match the semicolon used later to separate the second and third items in the series (“manmade…bags” and “and…glue”). Additionally, it’s not conventional to use a colon in this way to separate a supplementary phrase (“such as plastic bags”) from the noun phrase it modifies (“man-made trash”).

Choice C is incorrect because a comma after “leaves” doesn’t match the semicolon used later to separate the second and third items in the series (“man-made…bags” and “and…glue”).

Choice D is incorrect because it’s not conventional to use a semicolon in this way to separate a supplementary phrase (“such as plastic bags”) from the noun phrase it modifies (“man-made trash”).

Learn Punctuation.

Choice A is the best answer. The convention being tested is the punctuation of supplementary elements within a sentence. This choice correctly uses a comma to separate the supplementary adverb “however” from the preceding main clause (“only…competitions”), and it uses a colon to introduce the list of dances that follows (“rumba…jive”). Further, placing the colon after “however” rather than before indicates that the information in the preceding main clause (only…competitions) is contrary to what might be assumed from the information in the previous sentence (Latin America has many more dance forms).

Choice B is incorrect. The comma after “however” can’t be used in this way to introduce a series (“rumba…jive”).

Choice C is incorrect because it isn’t conventional to use a semicolon in this way to introduce a series of items, such as the list of dances.

Choice D is incorrect because placing the semicolon after “competitions” illogically indicates that the following list of five Latin American dances (“rumba…jive”) is contrary to the information in the previous clause (only five Latin American dances are included in international ballroom dance
competitions).

Learn Punctuation.

Choice D is the best answer. The convention being tested is punctuation use between two main clauses. In this choice, a colon is correctly used to mark the boundary between one main clause (“goats are notoriously indiscriminate”) and another main clause (“they will devour all kinds of shrubs and weeds”) and to introduce the following explanation of goats’ nondiscriminatory behavior when it
comes to what they eat.

Choice A is incorrect because when coordinating two longer main clauses such as these, it’s conventional to use a comma before the coordinating conjunction. Furthermore, the conjunction “and” fails to indicate that what follows is an explanation of goats’ nondiscriminatory behavior when it comes to their diets.

Choice B is incorrect because it results in a comma splice. A comma can’t be used in this way to join two main clauses (“goats…indiscriminate” and “they…weeds”).

Choice C is incorrect because it results in a run-on sentence. The two main clauses (“goats…indiscriminate” and “they…weeds”) are fused without punctuation and/or a conjunction.

Learn Punctuation.

Choice B is the best answer. The sentence compares the lengths of the two rail tunnels, noting that the Channel Tunnel (about 31 miles long) is slightly shorter than the Seikan Tunnel (roughly 33 miles long).

Choice A is incorrect. The sentence makes a generalization about the length of some rail tunnels; it doesn’t compare the lengths of the two rail tunnels.

Choice C is incorrect. The sentence describes a single rail tunnel; it doesn’t compare the lengths of the two rail tunnels.

Choice D is incorrect. While the sentence mentions the two rail tunnels, it doesn’t compare their lengths.

Keep practicing questions like these to become a master of it. Work on your summarizing skills.

Choice A is the best answer. The sentence emphasizes the aim of the research study by highlighting what the researchers conducting the study wanted to know—specifically, which factors influence clutch size among lizards.

Choice B is incorrect because the sentence emphasizes what researchers determined at the end of the study, not what the study’s aim was.

Choice C is incorrect because the sentence emphasizes a finding from the research study, not the aim of the study.

Choice D is incorrect because the sentence emphasizes the research study’s methodology, not its aim.

The more you practice – the better you will become on it. These types of questions are literary conclusive of your reading and writing skills.