Sentence Correction Practice Questions

Select the answer choice that corrects the error in the sentence. If the sentence is correct as written, select answer choice A.

1. He said that he did not know of nobody else who could do this job.

1. He said that he did not know of nobody else who could do this job.
2. He said that he did not know of anybody else who could do this job.
3. He said he did not know of no other person who could do this job.
4. He said that he did not know nobody else that could do this job.
5. He said that he did not know anybody that could do this job.

2. Factual errors, typographical errors, and those kind of things mar these web pages.

1. Factual errors, typographical errors, and those kind of things mar these web pages.
2. Factual errors; typographical errors; and those kind of things mar these web pages.
3. Factual errors, typographical errors, and those kinds of things mar these web pages.
4. Factual errors, typographical errors, and that kind of things mars these web pages.
5. Factual errors, typographical errors, and those kinds of thing mar these web pages.

3. A good writer can avoid these errors unless they haven’t internalized the rules of grammar.

1. A good writer can avoid these errors unless they haven’t internalized the rules of grammar.
2. A good writer can avoid these errors provided they haven’t internalized the grammar rules.
3. A good writer can avoid these errors unless they have internalized the rules of grammar.
4. A good writer can avoid these errors after having internalized the rules of grammar.
5. A good writer can avoid these errors while not having internalized grammar rules.

4. With no previous experience in politics, Harvey’s campaign is more popular than other candidates.

1. With no previous experience in politics, Harvey’s campaign is more popular than other candidates.
2. With no previous experience in politics, Harvey and his campaign is more popular than other candidates.
3. With no previous experience in politics, Harvey’s campaign more popularly than other candidates.
4. With no previous experience in politics, the campaign is more popular with Harvey than other candidates.
5. With no previous experience in politics, Harvey is more popular than other candidates.

5. Because of a server delay in delivering her reply, he thought she hadn’t received his e-mail.

1. Because of a server delay in delivering her reply, he thought she hadn’t received his e-mail.
2. Because of a server delay in delivering her reply; he thought she hadn’t received his e-mail.
3. Because of a server delay in delivering her reply he thought she hadn’t received his e-mail.
4. Because of a server delay in delivering her reply—he thought she hadn’t received his e-mail.

6. Professors operating fairly know that he or she cannot base grades on emotions or personality.

1. Professors operating fairly know that he or she cannot base grades on emotions or personality.
2. Professors operating fairly know that they cannot base grades on emotions or personality.
3. Professors operating fairly know that he cannot base grades on emotions or personality.
4. Professors operating fairly know that she cannot base grades on emotions or personality.

7. Jack installed a lighting fixture for her and also replacing a leaky sink pipe.

1. Jack installed a lighting fixture for her and also replacing a leaky sink pipe.
2. Jack installed a lighting fixture for her and also replace a leaky sink pipe.
3. Jack installed a lighting fixture for her and also replaced a leaky sink pipe.
4. Jack installed a lighting fixture for her and replacing a leaky sink pipe.

8. The burglar fled down the street, the Dobermans nipping at his heels.

1. The burglar fled down the street, the Dobermans nipping at his heels.
2. The burglar fled down the street, therefore the Dobermans were at his heels.
3. The burglar fled down the street, and so the Dobermans nipped at his heels.
4. The burglar fled down the street, and then there were Dobermans nipping at his heels.

9. The coherence of design in your collection and your execution was superb.

1. The coherence of design in your collection and your execution was superb.
2. The coherence of design in your collection and execution was superb.
3. The coherence of design in your collection and your execution is superb.
4. The coherence of design in your collection and your execution were superb.

10. Driving through the neighborhood, the houses were lit up with Christmas decorations.

1. Driving through the neighborhood, the houses were lit up with Christmas decorations.
2. Driving through the neighborhood, we saw the houses lit up with Christmas decorations.
3. While driving through the neighborhood, the houses are lit up with Christmas decorations.
4. Driven through the neighborhood, the houses were lighted up with Christmas decorations.

Answers – Sentence Correction

1. B: “He did not know” is a negative; the correct object choice is anybody. “Nobody” creates a double negative, which is ungrammatical. This would literally mean he did know of somebody, as the second negative would negate the first one. “No other person” (C) creates another double negative with “not” the same as “nobody” does. Answer (D) not only has the double negative, but it additionally uses “that” about a person, when “who” is preferred. (“That” is for things.) Answer (E) does not have the double negative, but it omits the word else, which changes the meaning of the sentence. With else, it means he only knew of one person who could do it; without it, it means he knew of no person who could.

2. C: “Those” is plural, so “kinds” must also be plural rather than the singular “kind.” Semicolons should not be used (B) as this is not a list of items with internal punctuation. This choice also repeats the agreement error of the original and (A). Choice (D) incorrectly uses the singular “that” and singular “kind” with the plural “things,” so there is still lack of agreement. Moreover, the plural noun “things” is followed by the singular verb “mars,” creating additional lack of agreement. In choice (E), the plural “those” and “kinds” do not agree with the singular “thing.”

3. D: This choice avoids the lack of subject-verb agreement between the singular “a good writer” and the plural “they” found in the original and in (A), (B), and (C). Additionally, the meaning of the original is reversed in (B) by substituting “provided” for “unless” and in (C) by substituting “have” for “haven’t.” Although (E) avoids the subject-verb disagreement, it also reverses the meaning by adding “not.”

4. E: This choice is the only one correctly making Harvey the subject of “is more popular.” The original and choices (A) and (C) sound as if Harvey’s campaign has no previous experience and is running for office rather than Harvey himself. The omission of the verb “is” and the use of the adverb “popularly” instead of the adjective “popular” are also incorrect in (C). Choice (B) incorrectly uses the singular verb “is” with “Harvey and his campaign” instead of the plural “are.” Moreover, the phrase “Harvey and his campaign” does not agree with “than other candidates.” It would have to read “than other candidates and their campaigns” to be consistent. Choice (D) does not retain the original meaning of the sentence.

5. A: This sentence is punctuated correctly. The first clause is a dependent clause and the second clause is an independent clause. When a dependent clause comes before an independent clause, they are separated by a comma. A semicolon (B) separates two independent clauses and is incorrect here. No punctuation (C) is also incorrect, as is a dash (D).

6. B: The subject “professors” is plural, so the dependent clause beginning with “that” must agree by also being plural, i.e., “they cannot.” The use of “he or she” in the original and choice (A) is singular. This would only agree if the subject were “A professor,” “The professor,” or “Any professor” and the verb were “knows.” The use of “he” alone (C) and “she” alone (D) is also incorrect in being singular instead of plural to agree with the subject. If the subject were singular (professor), (C) and (D) would still be incorrect in using only one pronoun instead of “he or she.”

7. C: The original and (A) err in not keeping parallel structure between the verbs. Since the first verb is past tense, installed, the second verb should also be past tense, replaced as it is in (C). The second verb in (B), “replace,” is not past tense but infinitive and thus incorrect. Choice (D) repeats the error in the original and (A) by using the progressive (continuous) replacing.

8. A: The original and (A) are correct. This sentence is an absolute construction. The participial phrase “the Dobermans nipping at his heels” modifies the subject. Choices (B), (C), and (D) alter the meaning of the sentence by adding superfluous words. Even if (B) were correctly punctuated with a semicolon, it would still have a different meaning. (B) and (C) indicate causation where the original and (A) did not. (D) indicates two events (fled and nipping) occurring sequentially in time while the original and (A) indicate they occurred simultaneously.

9. D: The subject of the sentence includes two nouns (coherence and execution) joined by the conjunction and. Therefore the verb must be plural – were, not was as in the original and (A). Omitting the possessive second-person pronoun your (B) does not correct this subject-verb agreement error. It also makes the meaning unclear. Without your, even if the verb tense were corrected, execution would need an article like the before it. Without either of these words, it sounds as if the coherence of design was not only in your collection, but also in your execution. The actual meaning is that the coherence of design in your collection was superb, and your execution [of the designs] was also superb. Changing the tense from past to present (C) still does not correct the error of a singular verb with two nouns.

10. B: The error in the original and (A) is a dangling participle. By omitting the subject for the verb driving, it reads as if the houses were driving through the neighborhood. The correct choice (B) adds the needed subject and verb, we saw. Adding “while” (C) does not replace the missing subject and verb. (Either past or present tense—the houses were/are—or no verb—we saw/see the houses lit up—can be used in this sentence as long as there is no dangling participle and both verbs agree in tense.) The past participle “driven” (D) is incorrect as well as still being a dangling participle. With the subject “we” added, the past participle would need an auxiliary verb, e.g., “Having driven through the neighborhood,” and the required second verb would have to agree, e.g., “we had seen/have seen houses lighted up with Christmas decorations.” (Either “lit up” or “lighted up” is acceptable.)